Greyslayer
03/11/02 06:16 PM
63.12.141.66
|
How about instead of wasting all my money on assault mechs I just field conventional aircraft? I'd control the skies, forcing you to be unable to use artillery. I'd be able to hunt down your stupid drone carrier and other units with impunity and so on. Your forces rely soooo much on a situation which should be almost impossible to arrive at. If you were an invader you would have great difficulty landing and setting up such a force considering how small a part your battlemechs actually play in it.
Seriously your plan doesn't sound any better than any other munch I have heard talk.
Greyslayer
|
Bob_Richter
03/11/02 06:29 PM
134.121.157.14
|
That's what the rear-mounted lasers are for.
Spider jumps behind Atlas. Zap. Splat.
Oh well.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Cray
03/12/02 06:58 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>You would need super-elite drones with weapon specialisation TAG just to have a chance on alot of Lights using most of the level 3 rules
Do you just ignore things I say that are not to your advantage or something?
I've already said when target numbers get too bad I just aim for the hex and let the area effect blast have its way with the target. 5pts per shot isn't much, but it adds up - especially on light mechs.
When the lights get near the artillery, they usually have go through such things as the screening force (mechs or combat vehicles), Thunder mine fields from the missile boats, and on-board unguided artillery where the area effect of artillery comes into its own.
What have I missed? Does some L3 rule I forgot make light mechs unusually resistant to 60pts of area effect damage per turn from a company of artillery dropping guided shells on its hex? Does the immobile target bonus not apply to firing at hexes with TAG or onboard weapons fire?
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.
|
Cray
03/12/02 07:12 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>I'd control the skies, forcing you to be unable to use artillery.
Pretty much. I'd probably keep the artillery up in orbit until my aerospace fighters got done with your conventional fighters and their bases. If they couldn't, the whole invasion would be in jeopardy. Conventional fighters are a much better counter tactic than that light mech idea you had in your other post.
ASF's are even better if you can find them - they can get attacking dropships before they drop their troops.
>Your forces rely soooo much on a situation which should be almost impossible to arrive at.
What situation are you talking about? With the reach of artillery and the speed of drones, it doesn't matter where the enemy is, how scattered the enemy is, how fast the enemy is - it's very adaptable. The artillery doesn't have to move a long distance to keep contact with the enemy, set up in ambush positions, or otherwise maneuver very far to engage the enemy because of the sheer range of its weaponry.
It's the difference between aircraft carriers (artillery) and battleships (mechs). A carrier can control a 1000-mile radius of ocean, while a battleship can control a 25-mile radius. The difference in the amount of maneuvering and special "situations" needed to deal with an opponent is obvious.
Of course, fighters have all that and more in spades, with the one exception they have to risk their own hides when strafing and bombing. Those new armor threshold rules in AT2 put even the heaviest fighters in danger.
>setting up such a force considering how small a part your battlemechs actually play in it.
This is rudely presumptuous. When did you figure out I make little use of mechs?
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.
|
Cray
03/12/02 07:13 AM
204.245.128.3
|
Now that's a sweet conventional fighter. I can see Sun Tzu thinking of something like that.
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 07:42 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'5pts per shot isn't much, but it adds up - especially on light mechs.'
I've clarified this in the past. For some reason the hex itself cannot be a target of the TAG attack. I've asked this of FASA in the past to clarify such attacks if used in the exact situation itself though no clarification was given on the exact result if the same attack was placed on what could be classed as a valid target such as a building. Next.
'When the lights get near the artillery, they usually have go through such things as the screening force (mechs or combat vehicles), Thunder mine fields from the missile boats, and on-board unguided artillery where the area effect of artillery comes into its own.'
So tell me just how much do you have to outnumber, outcost and simply just outdumb (not outsmart) your opponent? I can't seriously credit anyone who has to have everything their way, this is how the 'but I have this, that and the other' comes accross. What happened to being able to use what you have effectively?
'Does some L3 rule I forgot make light mechs unusually resistant to 60pts of area effect damage per turn from a company of artillery dropping guided shells on its hex?'
That happens if the movement of the unit that has a time delay causes the map of attack to be different from what you pre-programmed (at least in the new rules .... stupid modified rules). This can be simply caused by a player who strategically jinks (or in a more technical speak flanks) compared to their original directional attack.
It seems we agree to disagree.
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/12/02 08:02 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>I've clarified this in the past. For some reason the hex itself cannot be a target of the TAG attack
What page of what book is this found on, or do you have some e-mail that can be shared with us? This would be a real pain in the ass.
Wait wait wait...TARGET drones! Oh, what a munchkin idea. They move into the hex of the real target (but slowly) and get TAGged. Oh, that's just munchkin.
>So tell me just how much do you have to outnumber, outcost and simply just outdumb (not outsmart) your opponent?
Do the drones count toward outnumbering? Ideally, the whole ball of wax comes in at about battalion strength, not counting drones and support units (cargo vehicles, MASH, etc.) Whether or not I outnumber the opponent and how the opponent is distributed (in one big horde, scattered across the planet) determines how I use the battalion. Bumping into a Clan galaxy (or even cluster, I think) all mustered for parade would be as effective a foil as enemy aerospace superiority.
Usually the opponent outcosts me, if numbers are approximately equal (not counting drones, which total the price of 1 medium mech). I aim to fight Clan units, which are just thick with XL engines and mechs.
As for outdumbing, the whole point of the unit was to handle the tactical masters of BT, the Clans. Let them run around where ever they want in their faster, tougher, more potent mechs. Let them feint and sneak and flank. Let them charge with their assaults and sneak after the artillery with their lights. The drones will find them and the artillery will kill them.
Or such is the theory.
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.
|
Spartan
03/12/02 02:08 PM
172.173.124.123
|
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, cause I haven't read the whole thread. (I know shame on me) But the solution to this problem is simple. In the gaming group you're in stick with one era. Or have a different person or persons specialize in different eras or weight classes with just a little knowledge of the ones they didn't specialize in. That way if they can say Mech A is like Mech B from your era when the group is playing in an era that someone isn't familiar with.
Spartan
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
(I refer you to what Nightward said)
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 06:23 PM
63.12.147.192
|
'Wait wait wait...TARGET drones! Oh, what a munchkin idea. They move into the hex of the real target (but slowly) and get TAGged. Oh, that's just munchkin.'
Ahhh yes and you would play with someone silly enough not to declare you can only fire at enemy units (ie declare Targets can only be Enemy Forces). This would be due to the fact that it at no stage uses enemy unit in any description for attacks but only target. You could substitute Enemy Unit for Target throughout that entire section (and would make it alot easier too since you have a Targetting Computer that can Target a location on a Target gaining a Targetting bonus ... *shrugs* they must get a woody from using the word Target or something). BTW under TAG you cannot TAG infantry, I believe they used this as part of their explaination as to why you couldn't TAG the hex itself. You never know ask again and you might get another different answer, it wouldn't be the first time. (I remember having an argument with Randal Bills about Artillery damaging units below and above water and their being no limit to the depth of the attack compared to artillery attacks above water which is limited to the altitude of the attack (hmmmm lets see you have a 30 metre radius disc above water and a 30 meter infinite cylinder below ... LOL).
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/12/02 07:00 PM
12.78.125.46
|
>Ahhh yes and you would play with someone silly enough not
Question: What sort of low life insults people who aren't here to defend themselves, or has never met the people in question?
Also: never heard of friendly fire? Is imagining painting a friendly target with a laser designator so hard to imagine?
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.
|
Greyslayer
03/12/02 07:50 PM
63.12.147.192
|
' What sort of low life insults people who aren't here to defend themselves, or has never met the people in question?'
A person who get used to you painting them as such.
'never heard of friendly fire?'
Usually a part of Murphy's Law. You are in fact not using Murphy's Law which governs all things in the universe  .
'Is imagining painting a friendly target with a laser designator so hard to imagine?'
Not really, imagining you playing in the spirit of the game is a bit hard to believe though. Like any boring munch you use rule 'glitches' rather than any real tactical nouse. Everytime I given a situation instead of giving a good tactical response you have gone 'but I have these units and these units' adding more and more to your forces each time. Even when I don't change the forces coming at you but the methods of getting there you still add more and more to your forces just like anyone not willing to tackle something on the tactical level, You would be hard-pressed to lose to a fairly stock Clam player using C-bills, their universe doesn't value money and as such has a money is no object mentallity to building units. You are easily setting them up for the fall, I don't see why you would need to find every single glitch in the game to defeat a force so badly outdone.
Maybe it was a good thing I stopped being a munch so long ago.
Greyslayer
|
NathanKell
03/12/02 08:10 PM
24.44.238.62
|
And how is this so different from the ancient practice (at least 2 centuries or so...) of laying distance stakes in the ground: "When they hit the white stake, they're 200 yards, fix your sights!"
This is just the next level.
Heh, Assaults already practically have "Oh shoot me now" signs painted on...we're just talking about drone aids that *quite literally* have that painted on. 
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
NathanKell
03/12/02 08:12 PM
24.44.238.62
|
I don't use arty much.
Well....sorta. You see, my FOs are naval Lieutenants, and the arty's "upstairs."
Which reminds me...I should design a warship created solely as an Orbital Fire Support barge...might as well make it useful.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/12/02 08:13 PM
12.78.125.46
|
>A person who get used to you painting them as such.
I think you're mistaking your sheer presumtuousness for a failure on my friends' parts.
I bring up "new units" in response to your tactics *because you never asked about them.*
Do you recall how I entered this thread? Making a simple statement with a wealth of implications behind it: assault mechs are useless because I can do the same thing with artillery and heavy mechs.
When questioned about this or that point, I answered enough to (I thought) explain myself while not unduly insulting the intelligence of the questioner.
Then, with a fraction of the picture, you suddenly started telling me how you could completely trash my unit. Did you ever ask what my unit composition was? No. Did you ever ask how I responded to flankers and raiders? No. Did you ever ask how I responded to fighters? No. *You just started saying how things Would happen* even though you only had a fraction of the picture, and then called me a munchkin for explaining why they wouldn't. Fascinating.
When I explain more by mentioning what units I have to address your tactics, I mean to credit your intelligence by assuming you can figure out how those other units (the ones you never thought to ask about before) can cover the situation. I cannot talk tactics specifically (and neither can you) because neither of us knows the terrain, exactly what moves you made and what units you have, exactly what moves I made and what units I have (you need to ask these things), and how the dice rolls are turning out. I just mention the units and generalities.
And for your presumptuousness, I'm a munchkin. Fascinating.
Why don't you start again by asking some questions, rather than jumping to conclusions?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (03/12/02 08:42 PM)
|
Bob_Richter
03/12/02 09:58 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Were it not for the munchkin stupidity of not being able to TAG a hex, there would be no need for the munchkin stupidity of "target drones."
Cray: Would you mind posting one of your typical unit rosters?
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
NathanKell
03/12/02 10:12 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Hellooooo Faceless Horde!
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:40 AM
137.172.211.9
|
Don't forget I wasn't really arguing from the assault mech point of view but the Light Battlemech POV (point of view).
Also back in those days (ok a little while before the time you speak of) did not they send hundreds of peasants into combat then the Cavalry? The cavalry was expensive, well trained and at times too valuable to send into direct conflict with the enemy but they were still there and occasionally used, just like Assault mechs.
I've never been a great fan of assault mechs. Fact is until recently I never had an assault mech in my mercenary units (rarely even heavies either I'd usually prefer to skirmish like a mongul and heavies are not too good at that if you use stock mechs and limited or no 'baggage*'). I started a merc unit made purely of green assaults recently to have a bit of a lark and lost an awesome straight up in the second fight to a floating crit to the ct which doubled the gyro, you get that and I continue on in life. And no they didn't have the 'shoot me now' sign on it, I think someone put it on the Hunchback that was my Liason Officer .
Greyslayer
Baggage* is my reference to extensive specialised equipment. Early battletech history had artillery as a rare occurrance usually a part of fortifications or well defended positions as the mobility of a battlemech was alot greater than that of a current tank. This may not work in the game mechanics but things being rare could at least be treated as such .
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:57 AM
137.172.211.9
|
'Why don't you start again by asking some questions, rather than jumping to conclusions?'
Hmmmmm *ponders for a second* nope. You have already shown that you have changed your forces with the idea of 'taget drones' .
Greyslayer
|
Cray
03/13/02 07:50 AM
204.245.128.3
|
I've never used target drones (just a sudden munchkin thought) - I thought you could target hexes. My units will take some rethinking - it might be time to switch to air power completely.
The current battalion roster (neglecting non-combatants like MASH, engineering, etc.):
Mech Company (regular) [1]-
8 Troopers (75 ton generic mech seen here before)
4 Trooper-Ms (missile boat variant of the Trooper)
4 "Phoenix Hawks" (50 tons; PPC/ML-based loadout)
Mechanized Infantry Company (regular) [2]-
8 laser foot squads
4 SRM foot squads
8 40-ton IFVs (similar to Myrmidons, with room for 1 squad of infantry)
4 30-ton VTOLs (ER LL gunships with room for 1 squad of infantry)
Artillery Company [2]-
4 Arrow IV units ("Paladin"; 75 tons, 2 Arrow IVs, 300 XL)
8 Long Tom units ("Cavalier"; same chassis as Arrow IV units)
4 Drone Command vehicles (based on IFV; each controls 12 drones)
48 TAG drones (VTOL, 19/29, no armor)
Aerospace--
6 heavy fighters (munchkin 100-ton PPC/ML dropship hunters)
[1] Nominal. Depending on the scenario, I've tried a lot more of the generic mediums to see what I can do with faster mechs
[2] Often the infantry get left at home or deployed from cargo shuttles against rear echelon targets while the enemy mechs are out to play.
[3] Nominal. The Long Toms have reach (which is critical for this slow battalion), but the Arrow IV units provide a heavier volume of fire
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 07:55 AM
204.245.128.3
|
>Early battletech history had artillery as a rare occurrance usually a part of fortifications or well defended positions as the mobility of a battlemech was alot greater than that of a current tank. This may not work in the game mechanics but things being rare could at least be treated as such .
Which is I avoided artillery for the longest time. Artillery was rare in 3025 (but CCAF and SLDF favorite in the 2700s), but in the 3050s nothing is rare anymore.
Then there was the accuracy angle, but Arrow IV and Copperheads took care of that, so suddenly even small numbers of artillery pieces could be dangerous: highly accurate AC/20s with incredible range.
And then the commonality of fusion engines and low weight of Arrow IV artillery meant tanks could be almost as mobile as mechs over land. Not light mechs, but a VSTOL shuttle or dropship could fix that for long distance movement.
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 01:59 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Ah, level 3, the rules that make life more convenient: TAG *drones* to avoid risking pilots on the TAG missions and Copperhead artillery shells for better reach. Nothing critical.
I don't need L3 gear to make massed artillery and TAG work. What other L3 gear do you think I use?
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 02:00 PM
204.245.128.3
|
TAG is not negated by ECM. Read the rules again - Artemis, C3, Narc pods, Active Probes, yes, but TAG no. And Streak no, I think.
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 02:05 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Aren't you just a presumptuous little flame bait today.
Answer: No other L3 combatant systems.
I use MASH (d*mn me for caring about infantry) and engineering units (bridgelayers: gotta love'em).
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 02:16 PM
204.245.128.3
|
>And no, I am not a flame bait today
Deriding my use of L3 gear (that I do not use) and referring to that L3 gear in a derogatory manner is not a firm beginning for a civil exchange.
>Why bother with infantry, when it says in nearly every book that infantry are used only in low-intensity warfare, and rarely anywhere near 'mechs
Excuse me, since when do I use infantry near mechs? Exactly when did you learn enough about my infantry tactics to tell me something like the preceding quote?
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 02:22 PM
204.245.128.3
|
Hello! That's not all you did. By implication, you said I use it.
Now: tell me more about my infantry tactics.
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.
|
Bob_Richter
03/13/02 05:12 PM
134.121.157.14
|
Um. L3 rules are there to make the game more intricate, complex, and realistic. L3 TECH is what your thinking of (and even that distinction broke down when the FMs started coming out.)
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter
Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
|
Greyslayer
03/13/02 06:08 PM
63.12.141.49
|
Its funny that it isn't. What Perceivable difference is there between a C3 Master and a TAG if the TAG system piggy-backs the C3 signal? It an unexplainable piece of rubbish of an idea to have TAG separate from items which use the exact same methods to transmit either target data or re-alignment, TAG is in fact with a look at it would be harder to operate under a ECM field than say Artemis due to the fact the data is being sent to a far target from within the ECM.
This is a good case of a square being hammered into a round hole. You are correct though and I think I avoided arguing on that point but rather your 'drones' instead.
Greyslayer
|
NathanKell
03/13/02 06:48 PM
24.44.238.62
|
TAG is a laser designator, which can't be jammed.
C3 is a radio-frequency datanet, which can be jammed.
C3 Master simply also includes a laser designato (i.e. TAG) for some weird reason.
Note that shells / missiles don't home in on any kind of radio signal, they home in on a reflected laser beam.
-NathanKell, BT Space Wars
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson |
Cray
03/13/02 06:52 PM
12.91.139.169
|
You're looking at this from an interesting angle.
As I always gathered that TAG was a laser designator, I had no trouble understanding why it was immune to ECM. No data transmission or anything fancy required: it just put a coded laser spot on the target and TAG-compatible munitions homed in. (To jam: use a smoke screen.)
What was baffling was how the C3 Master simulated this, particularly in light of TAG's immunity to ECM. Did the C3 master have laser communication links that could sub in for a TAG? If so, why were C3 networks vulnerable to ECM?
As for drones, that's just a matter of convenience - namely, sparing pilot lives. The TAG VTOLs are cheaper, more accurate, lighter and/or faster when they a human pilot on board. They might even have a bit of armor.
Did you find a page reference or quote from Randall indicating hexes cannot be targeted?
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.
|
Cray
03/13/02 06:54 PM
12.91.139.169
|
>TAG is a laser designator, which can't be jammed.
That is the bleeding obvious, no-duh, why-would-you-use-anything-else assumption, but I don't recall actually seeing that stated anywhere in a rule book, or even in fluff.
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.
|