PeterSmith
09/30/02 07:35 PM
4.17.223.29
|
Karagin, your apparent refusal to even read the books in question not only makes yourself look foolish, but now you're making Rick Raisley look bad. That is your name I see in the credits. How embarassing it must be to find out that one of his playtesters doesn't even have a clue as to how the game even works.
I'll cite you, page and verse, the parts in AT2 which apply to Bob's statement about the C3 Master/Slave and C3i systems not being used in AT2 when I get home (and get to my book).
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
09/30/02 07:56 PM
63.173.170.189
|
Actually Peter, I do understand know how AT2 works...but seeing how you are doing nothing but attacking me over this I find it sad that FanPro and WK even let you moderate their message boards, given how you seem to think you know more then anyone else out there.
Please post the page it's on I would love to see it since after LOOKING THROUGH the book I was not able to find it. But I am sure you will come up with something or if not you will try and flame the topic to death.
And if you missed the whole point of thread, it was to get ideas, but far be it from me to point how fast you are on non-CBT sites to try and smash those kinds of threads...
So have a nice day.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/01/02 12:28 AM
216.14.192.226
|
What is it with you CBTers going after Rick? It must be his helpful unbiased way of looking at things. If a playtester knew everything written would you seriously need more than one? You use a large number of playtesters to get a more polished result. Of course after all the errors (typos and so on) in the Civil War book you are just throwing stones from a glass building.
But more on-topic. If allowing ECM on warships then why not allow a C3 system on warships as well. (I actually think that using triangulating data would improve your chances to hit in space quite handily)?
Greyslayer
|
Nightmare
10/01/02 01:43 AM
194.251.240.106
|
-Please post the page it's on I would love to see it since after LOOKING THROUGH the book I was not able to find it.
Some relevant passages follow. Not that they`re clear, but at least I get the impression C3 isn`t allowed on fighters or spacecraft. BattleTech scale ECM is legal, although I`d think only fighters bother with it. After all, capital weaponry doesn`t come with Artemis systems. The AT2 section on Tele-Operated Missiles (page 41) doesn`t mention ECM, so at least we can assume BT scale ECM has no effect on those.
AT2, page 46: the chapter titled "Weapons, ammunition and equipment" does contain a passage that might be seen as negative. It tells us to pick weapons from the tables starting at page 99, and that some stuff from the BMR that was left out isn`t used on fighters.
AT2, page 53: "Battle Values".
Step 1 does tell us that only AMS+ammo, screen launchers and ECM systems count as defensive equipment. All else is offensive.
Step 2 specifies only heat and movement for modifying offensive BV. C3 isn`t mentioned, or anything else for that matter.
BUT there are several fighters with Active Probes or TCs. The clanner Vandal mounts a probe, as does the IS Hellcat II. A few clanner and IS fighters mount a TC. I`ve even found two that mounts an ECM suite, the clanner Sabutai B and Jengiz Prime. C3 doesn`t seem to get any screen time at all, in fact I can`t see anything at all about it in my AT2... I would, however,expect the Draconis fighters in TRO 3067 to use C3 if it was legal.
One other note: BMR, unrevised, page 124: C3 Computer. It says that only IS mechs and vehicles may use it. Not a word about fighters. Yet the TC description on page 134 in the same book says "clan units", not specifically which class.
I assume BT scale Active Probes and ECM are useful only for fighters/dropships on the BattleTech map. See hidden units and gain protection from some stuff you`ll only see mounted on mechs.
Oh, one more thing: the AT2 equipment list on page 99 states that NARC Beacons are only effective against ground units, and that only ground units can gain any bonus from them. That`s odd. I think that the whole AT2 book was a rush job, leaving out important information.
Advice for Evil Overlords:
My legions of terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for target practice.
|
PeterSmith
10/01/02 01:56 AM
67.36.180.234
|
Page 46. I don't see how you could have missed it, considering the section had a natural draw to it (italic text in a section of standard typeface).
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
10/01/02 02:57 AM
67.36.180.234
|
"What is it with you CBTers going after Rick?"
Wow. I am really impressed. You managed to take my expression of sympathy towards Rick and turn it completely around. Bravo. Here, have a cookie.
"If a playtester knew everything written would you seriously need more than one?"
Yes. You cannot assume that one single playtester will have absolute knowledge about a product, as is the case in this issue. I can understand where a person does not have complete understanding of a source/rulebook. However, would you not agree that if you are going to produce a program to assist in the creation of new designs, that it would be prudent to know all of the applicable rules?
"Of course after all the errors (typos and so on) in the Civil War book you are just throwing stones from a glass building."
Man, you're amazing. You managed to take something that nobody ever said and brought it into this conversation. I mean, you must have some seriously good eyes, because I could not find anything in the post about HeavyMetal Aero being a buggy or inaccurate. Have another cookie.
"If allowing ECM on warships "
I still don't buy the concept of ECM on spacecraft. Look at the way the ECM systems would have to scale up, assuming a straight-line progression. For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume the ground unit is able to fully jam a sphere, and not just a hemisphere. Your standard Guardian ECM Suite is able to jam a sphere that has a volume of 31 million cubic meters. That's a bubble with a radius of 195 meters (180 meters for the six hex range, plus half of the hex you're standing in). Assuming Space ECM suites of 0, 1 and 2 hex radii (using Mike's idea), you end up with volumes of 3.052 trillion cubic meters (~98,316 times larger), 82.406 trillion cubic meters (~2,654,528 times larger), and 381.5 trillion cubic meters (12,289,485 times larger). If you scaled up 1:1, you could only mount an overglorified point defense system on the largest craft. To be able to cover a small fleet, you would need at least a system that would be 100 times as powerful per ton as a GECM, and even then you would still be around 27,000 tons. For an armada that doesn't mind sticking close, the ratio hits 1000:1 or higher.
As for your C3 idea, from a game perspective, it needs balance. Unless you're willing to devote serious percentages of the craft's size (on the order of 20% or higher) to the system, there really is no way to balance out the effects. The reason? Lasers. Crack open a copy of Explorer Corps. Pages 34 and 35 discuss external communications, where it talks about the use of lasers as the primary form of secured ship-to-ship comms. Now unless you want to physically put yourself directly between two enemy WarShips, no amount of electronic noise will stop those beams of light from getting through. Such a system would, for all intents and purposes, be unjamable. Such a system would severely upset the game balance, unless it also occupied a serious percentage of the craft mounting it. But unlike the ECM system, it really does not make any sense to have such a large system that is essentially a bundle of additional communication lasers weigh so much.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
10/01/02 03:27 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'Wow. I am really impressed. You managed to take my expression of sympathy towards Rick and turn it completely around. Bravo. Here, have a cookie.'
You used it in a sarcastic way much the way you posted this. A cookie? It better be macadamia nut choc chip!
'However, would you not agree that if you are going to produce a program to assist in the creation of new designs, that it would be prudent to know all of the applicable rules?'
Which is EXACTLY what I was getting at. He had lots of playtesters. Karagin did not PRODUCE the program but he was involved in the overall project and thus he earned his name on the list for that program. Just because he argues with everyone on everything doesn't mean his name shouldn't be there and neither does it mean he should not be involved in testing either.
'Man, you're amazing. You managed to take something that nobody ever said and brought it into this conversation. I mean, you must have some seriously good eyes, because I could not find anything in the post about HeavyMetal Aero being a buggy or inaccurate. Have another cookie.'
Just like you brought Rick's name into this. I remember another fool using this have a cookie approach but I cannot quite remember who that was *shrugs* oh well if its the only way to think of a comeback.
'I still don't buy the concept of ECM on spacecraft.'
I never said I was for it either (the reason for the 'if'), you could not 'cloak' effectively in space with a background because all you need to two different locations to look at the same spot and they will pick up a difference (example of Cray using a light to fool a ship ... the power that light would operate at to reach the ships sensors possibly thousands of kilometers away and still remain at a level that imitates a 'stars light' and also the fact that from a different angle the light will not represent the same star thus create a even bigger discrepancy).
'As for your C3 idea, from a game perspective, it needs balance.'
This was more a if they want to use ECM may as well use a C3-type system (probably more like C3i). I see no problem with the ships tightbeaming each other its getting the right sensor data through a ECM type field on the target that would be a problem (of course optical recognition scanners would overcome this but not really useful in the battletech universe). This is what makes me laugh about ECM and C3 in normal battletech, the Master can simulate a TAG (which is a laser guide) yet requires direct LOS with units to maintain a link (much like a laser link normally does) but can be jammed by the common ECM (like a radio transmission). Just what the hell is it? 
Greyslayer
|
Cray
10/01/02 06:59 AM
64.83.29.242
|
>I don't buy the reduction rates
Why not? You've made a point about stern-first approaches, but have said nothing about head-on approaches. Gimme proof.
>Aside from some handwavium, or a good dose of HEROChip logic,
Are you trying to set a pleasant tone for this conversation?
>how would you hide the IR signature of "multi-million degree exhaust gases" that are pointed towards your target?
Carefully.  What are hydrogen's emission lines at a million degrees?
Head-on, with the hot rocket nozzles (<--main EM emitters in the engine system), the hydrogen spewing from a large warship amounts to 450 grams a second...from engine nozzles over a hundred meters in diameter. So you have a near-vacuum stream of hot hydrogen.
What, again, is the emission spectrum of hydrogen hot enough to be moving a fly fart short of light speed? It's gamma rays, I think. Gamma rays from a small trace of hot hydrogen. With the IR/visible signature of the hot nozzles hidden, who's going to notice some a tickle of gamma rays?
Ferociously cooled and magnetically insulated rocket nozzles should make stern-first approaches reasonably discrete, too.
>If that is the case, I would think using a system like that would be more of a hazard to the emitting craft, as any returned signals would most likely be drowned out by the background radiation.
I was borrowing the idea from the B-2, F-22, and F-35.
>How do you deal with the loudest indicator of approaching craft-the jump wave?
Not with ECM, and the "loud indicator" is a faint IR burst that can be overlooked if the arriving jumpship is more than a few AU away.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
10/01/02 09:23 AM
63.173.170.79
|
I am on that page right now...and there is NOTHING about ECM or C3 on that page.
So now that is cleared up, we can go back to look at ideas of using the exsiting equipment or the custom equipment idea that Cray is working on.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
novakitty
10/01/02 11:28 AM
192.195.234.26
|
I see the phrase: "Certain weapons and equipment included in the Battletech Master Rules have been omitted from these tables because those weapons are not used on spacecraft or aircraft."
That is the closest to "No C3 or ECM" that I could find.
meow
|
Karagin
10/01/02 02:10 PM
63.173.170.108
|
Since it doesn't list ECM or C3 as not being allowed, the point stands...now can we get back to the original topic of this thread or not?
It has been proven that nothing in the book says they can not be used, so idea is still a vailid one...which is HOW to make an ECM equiped warship...going back to the original thread that I posted, I pointed out how many ECM units or Beagles should be used...thus keeping things with in the BT levels of play.
Cray feels that we need bigger ECM units for the warships, that is an interesting idea and he has posted his thoughts on the matter. So what I am asking is we let Peter and Bob comments stand as votes of NO for this idea and move on instead of going down the same path they seem to want to take all topics they don't agree with.
Can we move BACK ON to the topic and try to reach a middle ground or find away to work with in the Level 2 settings.
Thanks.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
10/01/02 02:18 PM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Since it doesn't list ECM or C3<<<
THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED (p46.)
Your "Point" does NOT stand.
THIS *IS* the subject at hand. Quit trying to dodge it.
-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
10/01/02 02:19 PM
24.44.238.62
|
Novakitty just posted the exclusion phrase:
"Certain items listed in BMR are not legal on AT2 craft. If it's not on this table, it's not legal."
Neither C3, ECM, or BAP are on the table. Therefore they are not legal. Period.
Now, if you're talking house rules, I fully agree that ECM, probes, C3, etc--properly scaled up--would be useful and desirable.
-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 |
Karagin
10/01/02 02:25 PM
63.173.170.108
|
Thank you Bob for again trying to destroy a thread you don't support.
Please do not add any more to this since your post will be ignored.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
10/01/02 02:30 PM
63.173.170.108
|
Not legal...interesting...
Try this out:
code:
AeroTech 2 Vessel Technical Readout
VALIDATED
Class/Model/Name: Judson EW Class Corvette
Tech: Inner Sphere / 3067
Vessel Type: WarShip
Rules: Level 2, Standard design
Rules Set: AeroTech2
Mass: 100,000 tons
K-F Drive System: (Unknown)
Power Plant: Standard
Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide
Armament:
24 Guardian ECM
24 PPC
8 NL35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class/Model/Name: Judson EW Class Corvette
Mass: 100,000 tons
Equipment: Mass
Power Plant, Drive & Control: 24,000.00
Thrust: Safe Thrust: 4
Maximum Thrust: 6
Kearny-Fuchida Hyperdrive: Compact (Integrity = 4) 45,250.00
Jump Sail: No Sail (Fusion-Charged K-F) .00
Structural Integrity: 150 15,000.00
Total Heat Sinks: 334 Double 70.00
Fuel & Fuel Pumps: 5,100.00
Bridge, Controls, Radar, Computer & Attitude Thrusters: 250.00
Fire Control Computers: .00
Food & Water: (377 days supply) 402.00
Hyperpulse Generator: 50.00
Armor Type: Lamellor Ferro-carbide (510 total armor pts) 300.00
Capital Scale Armor Pts
Location: L / R
Fore: 93
Fore-Left/Right: 85/85
Aft-Left/Right: 85/85
Aft: 77
Cargo:
Bay 1: Fighters (6) with 2 doors 900.00
Bay 2: Cargo (1) 1,607.00
Crew and Passengers:
20 Officers (16 minimum) 200.00
65 Crew (45 minimum) 455.00
16 Gunners (16 minimum) 112.00
100 Marines 500.00
12 Bay Personnel .00
Weapons and Equipment Loc SRV MRV LRV ERV Heat Mass
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Guardian ECM Nose -- -- -- -- 0 4.50
3 PPC Nose 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 30 21.00
1 NL35 Nose 4 4 4 -- 52 700.00
3 Guardian ECM FL/R -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC FL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 FL/R 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM L/RBS -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC L/RBS 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 L/RBS 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM AL/R -- -- -- -- 0 9.00
3 PPC AL/R 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 60 42.00
1 NL35 AL/R 4 4 4 -- 104 1,400.00
3 Guardian ECM Aft -- -- -- -- 0 4.50
3 PPC Aft 3(30) 3(30) -- -- 30 21.00
1 NL35 Aft 4 4 4 -- 52 700.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Heat: 656 100,000.00
Tons Left: .00
Calculated Factors:
Total Cost: 3,537,994,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 27,699
Cost per BV: 127,730.03
Weapon Value: 22,199 (Ratio = .80)
Damage Factors: SRV = 477; MRV = 430; LRV = 202; ERV = 78
Maintenance: Maintenance Point Value (MPV) = 268,725
(121,466 Structure, 135,175 Life Support, 12,084 Weapons)
Support Points (SP) = 122,328 (46% of MPV)
BattleForce2: Not applicable
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
10/01/02 02:55 PM
4.35.174.250
|
...Rick has made an error regarding the legality of a design.
Your HMA mockup is meaningless. Page 46 cannot be ignored.
-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.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/01/02 02:57 PM
4.35.174.250
|
...trying to destroy a thread and trying to BEAT SOMETHING THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL so that the thread can be productive are two entirely different things.
-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
10/01/02 07:13 PM
63.12.141.16
|
Page 46 itself is in error. Several Designs pre-exist these rules that in themselves use the equipment not listed.
Would it not be a great and wholely effective idea before you ban it from being used on something that you at least mention that it is NO LONGER LEGAL in the material (such as AT2, but we all know the production values and inherent errors in such work). Now because they couldn't be buggered to produce a half-decent product that is clear and concise disagreements will abound.
Now I classify the BMR to overrule any other rulebook until a new more recent rulebook is released. It says any unit can carry an ECM (page 126 in my non-revised one), it also states the systems they affect such as Artemis IV FCS. So why cannot a dropship use an ECM to protect itself from a Artemis guided munitions? Its not as though its bigger than the 195 meter radius calculated earlier is it? A fighter on a recon mission flying just above the treetops should be able to use its BAP to detect hidden units (unless you are playing level 3 then by definition it will not work, refer to jumping and beagle probes in Max Tech). Its like the Fortress Dropship, it has a long tom. Not legal for aerospace combat but once grounded it can use it in the standard part of the game as usual.
Oh and btw Page 85 in AT2 Vandal Prime BAP Nose, Page 88 HCT-213B Hellcat II BAP Nose, Page 93 Sabutai B ECM Suite Aft and Page 94 Jengiz Primary Configuration ECM Suite AFT. Need I say more?
Oh yeah you are going to go on about page 46 again right? Let me read it clearly
" Unless otherwise noted, all equipment can be used by all vessels of Dropship size or larger. Players building Inner Sphere vessels can select weapons from the Inner Sphere Standard Woeopons Table (p. 99); players building Clan vessels choose from the Clan Standard Weapons Table (pp. 100-101)............Certain Weapons and equipment included in the Battletech Master Rules have been omitted from these tables because those weapons are not used on spacecraft or aircraft."
It IS noted that aerospace fighters mount ECM and BAP by the mere representation of several aerospace units using those peices of kit in the VERY SAME BOOK. It was not 'otherwise noted' that dropships and warships cannot use these pieces of equipment then, therefore they are LEGAL. What isn't legal about Karagin's design is that there is more than 1 ECM on the 'unit' (p. 126 BMR).
There is no error in the legality of using the equipment, you in no way looked at the number of ECMs on the unit, the error is purely yours.
Greyslayer ... donned the rules-lawyer wig (or was it a mop-head  )
|
PeterSmith
10/01/02 07:27 PM
4.17.223.29
|
"Why not? You've made a point about stern-first approaches, but have said nothing about head-on approaches. Gimme proof."
I'll conceed that braking will really be the only issue, as far as IR detection is concerned. I thought about it last night a little more, and unless you have a monitoring station on the opposite side of the inbound craft, the bulk of the craft will simply shield things.
"Are you trying to set a pleasant tone for this conversation?"
I apologise for my choice of language. I hold your experience and knowledge much too high to make those remarks, and for that I'm sorry.
"who's going to notice some a tickle of gamma rays?"
A new source appearing without a discernable source? It would probably pique my attention.
"Not with ECM, and the "loud indicator" is a faint IR burst that can be overlooked if the arriving jumpship is more than a few AU away."
Well, the IR wave really can't be seen outside of 50,000 km. But that's a side-note. I was speaking of the EMP wave, which has a distinctive signature, and has a detection range of 15AU (2.25 billion kilometers). That would be the biggest issue to overcome. You could either come in at the Zenith or Nadir point, praying that nobody was there to see you. Or you could come in from a pirate point. But that would probably alert the ground crews even more. In either case, I would expect the telescopes scanning the skies. Eventually, you'll get spotted.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
10/01/02 08:22 PM
4.17.223.29
|
"It better be macadamia nut choc chip!
"
You're more than welcome to them. I hate macadamia nuts.
"Karagin did not PRODUCE the program but he was involved in the overall project and thus he earned his name on the list for that program. Just because he argues with everyone on everything doesn't mean his name shouldn't be there"
I'm sure Karagin did some amount of work for the program. Judging by the number of times I've seen his name pop up on the HMA Playtesting Forum as "Last Post By" on Rick's board, he contributed a good number of posts.
"neither does it mean he should not be involved in testing either."
Here I disagree, though that is situtational. This thread proves one of two things. Either Karagin does not, in fact, understand the construction rules of craft in the AeroTech 2 book. If this is the case, then he has no business working on a program that focuses in on those rules. It would be akin to a person being used as a referee at a football game but they never read the rule book.
Or Karagin does know the rules, and for whatever reason refuses to acknowledge that he could be wrong on something.
I'm leaning towards the second myself.
"I never said I was for it either (the reason for the 'if'), you could not 'cloak' effectively in space with a background because all you need to two different locations to look at the same spot and they will pick up a difference"
You don't even need that. Compare a picture with one that was taken at a previous time.
"This is what makes me laugh about ECM and C3 in normal battletech, the Master can simulate a TAG (which is a laser guide) yet requires direct LOS with units to maintain a link (much like a laser link normally does) but can be jammed by the common ECM (like a radio transmission). Just what the hell is it?"
Well, the system itself isn't based on LOS transmission. If it were, you would expect to see the spotters themselves able to replicate the TAG system as well. The whole "Master as a TAG" thing strikes me as a "Well, we need this thing to do just a little more so people won't whine about the weight." kind of a thing. As for the C3 system needing LOS between the members of the network, I'm not sure about that one. Since I don't have my books with me, I can't check now. But I don't recall that requirement being in there. Yes, having LOS between the shooters and the target is required (no using C3 to shoot through a forest and hitting somebody), but not the network. I'll want to double-check that one when I get home.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
10/01/02 08:40 PM
63.173.170.56
|
Actually Peter has it ever accured to you that things may have been changed? Like for example conventional fighters got back their engery weapons which makes the rule in the AT2 book wrong now doesn't it?
And I do seem to recall something meantion of a new erratta sheet for AT2 comming out to cover things and clear up things...yes I do remember that being mentioned on the AT2 forum...
But hey why should I bore you with facts since you know everything...as for being wrong...why should I worry about it when we have folks like you running around trying to prove everyone is wrong unless they like what you like...oh wait that would be a personal attack just like your post above in this thread...drat and I wasn't going to stoop to your level. 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
10/01/02 09:48 PM
4.17.223.29
|
I'll counter you with this one:
Has it ever occured to you that I am about three steps ahead of you with knowledge of such things, however discussion of that would violate an NDA?
Hartford will be writing the FAQ. That's a given, and announced a while back. However, it is not out yet. Which means that it has absolutely no worth to this discussion at all. When it is released, thus making changes to the rules, then it can and will apply.
But that is in the future, and we are talking about now. And as of now, your example of conventional fighters mounting energy weapons is just as illegal as it was last week, the week before that, and the week before that.
"why should I worry about it when we have folks like you running around trying to prove everyone is wrong unless they like what you like"
It's funny, that situtation. I deal with people who have differing opinions than I do every day. I don't deal with them in the same manner as I deal with you. However, that's because they are not only willing to actually do a little research, but if they find out that they are in error, they're man enough (or women enough in the case of the opposite gender) to admit it.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
10/01/02 09:57 PM
63.12.145.127
|
'I hate macadamia nuts.'
Ahh then more macadamia shortbread for me too! 
'Well, the system itself isn't based on LOS transmission. If it were, you would expect to see the spotters themselves able to replicate the TAG system as well. The whole "Master as a TAG" thing strikes me as a "Well, we need this thing to do just a little more so people won't whine about the weight." kind of a thing. As for the C3 system needing LOS between the members of the network, I'm not sure about that one. Since I don't have my books with me, I can't check now. But I don't recall that requirement being in there. Yes, having LOS between the shooters and the target is required (no using C3 to shoot through a forest and hitting somebody), but not the network. I'll want to double-check that one when I get home.'
As such the original just said you could designate a unit with the c3 command lance as the controlling unit and as long as a couple of units has LOS to each other its fine. Later books specifically state that as long as the Master is on the mapboard everything is hunky-dory. It does work though the usage of two systems (laser and radio) is buggy to me. Then I read the ECM rules and it states (p. 126 BMR on C3 Computer:)
"ECM has the effect of 'cutting off' any c3-equipped unit from its network. If a c3 master unit is isolated from the network by being inide the ECM radius, the entire portion of the network 'below' it is effectively shut off (all units subordinate to it on the diagram on p.124). Only those C3 units that can draw an LOS to the master unit that does not pass into or through the ECM radius can access the network. If the master unit that connects the lances of a company is inside the ECM effect radius, the link between the lances is lost, though each lance's network would function normally (unless the ECM also interfered with them individually)."
They also go on in the example about this on page 127. This totally goes against the 'just having the mech on the map' part that was explained earlier. Its up to you to decide which one is correct, I have gone for the LOS version as described in ECM though it does beg the question:
Would not the company command unit have to have a visible LOS to the Lance C3 units to maintain company integrity under these rules?
Fun fun fun.... of course unless they changed their definition of LOS just for that particular example which would annoy everyone no end (Line of Sight rules P. 25-27 BMR).
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
10/01/02 10:41 PM
63.173.170.56
|
Actually Peter, anyone who has seen the posted ships by testers ON any of the sites already have an idea of what has been changed or not...
And anyone who has bought and recivied HMAERO already knows that changes have been made.
So the idea that things HAVE change is relative to the topic and should be considered.
But I for you know all and everyone else knows nothing about the game...so talking with about this is pointless.
Thanks for you input...I will file it with the NO group.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
masdog5
10/01/02 10:44 PM
205.213.146.31
|
All of this begs one big question. In an era where communications satelites are over a millenium old, why would a command and control system need LOS when it could just bounce signals off of a comm sat/dropship/warship/other orbiting comm. hub?
Edited by masdog5 (10/01/02 10:47 PM)
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 12:30 AM
216.14.192.226
|
They have a rule for satellites in level 3 play (basically a +2 to initiative or something for certain units with a satelite uplink but generally only a couple of units have that capability). Also when say someone attacks they generally take out the satelites. You wouldn't get much usage out of them unless you held a space advantage.
BTW how many resources would you dedicate to protecting your satelites? One aerospace fighter could take out most of your network even if you tried to protect them with superior forces.
Of course it also has problems of fitting in with the level of consistancy of battletech. This being said why would a ECM bubble affect a C3 if they transmit over high obstacles like hills and tall buildings... why not over a ECM bubble?
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 03:38 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"Its up to you to decide which one is correct"
Only if I write the next rule book that covers this. 
I read over that section. Then I went back to the C3 section. Then I came back to the ECM section and read over the examples a few times. Then I grabbed the original BMR (I use the Revised version, as it is the most current), and repeated the process, to be sure nothing changed with respect to the systems (nothing did).
The situtation where LOS applies seems to be restricted to when you're taking ECM into account. Flip your BMR (not Revised) over to page 125 and take a look at the C3 example. The text that goes along with the picture states that the 'Mech in Hex D can use the targeting feed from the 'Mech in Hex B, but must account for the point of woods in Hex F. But if you trace LOS between Hex D and Hex B, you'll find that there is no LOS. Yet the example says that Hex D can still use Hex B's feed.
As for the ECM version of that diagram, though the 'Mech in Hex E is closer to the 'Mech in Hex A than the 'Mech in Hex D, Hex E has no LOS to Hex A, which means that the 'Mech in Hex E is worthless with respect to the 'Mech in Hex A at this point.
"This totally goes against the 'just having the mech on the map' part that was explained earlier."
Actually, it makes sense. Take a look at the diagrams for the company-level network arrangements. They show that Slaves are always controlled by a Master Computer. If that Master Computer gets taken off-line (by turning it off, having it destroyed, or having its communication links jammed via ECM), those Slaves have nothing to talk to. That's also one way the C3i system is an improvement over the C3 system. Their nodes are all interconnected to the other nodes, instead of everything linking to a single source.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Bob_Richter
10/02/02 03:41 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>Several Designs pre-exist these rules that in themselves use the equipment not listed.<<<
And are thus rendered illegal by them.
Just as they are rendered illegal by their excessive nose armor.
>>>Now I classify the BMR to overrule any other rulebook until a new more recent rulebook is released.<<<
Such as AT2, for example.
>>>It IS noted that aerospace fighters mount ECM and BAP by the mere representation of several aerospace units using those peices of kit in the VERY SAME BOOK.<<<
ALL OF THOSE AEROSPACE FIGHTERS ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL!
Why would it matter if they happened to have a little extra illegal equipment aboard?
-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.
:)
|
Bob_Richter
10/02/02 03:47 AM
4.35.174.250
|
>>>So the idea that things HAVE change is relative to the topic and should be considered.<<<
As is the idea that Rick *HAS BEEN WRONG BEFORE*
I hate to keep harping on it, but it's the truth.
I think I may have to go straight to the source on this one. Curse you, Karagin, I hate wasting people's time. Especially mine.
-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.
:)
|
Acolyte
10/02/02 04:00 AM
142.179.27.248
|
They are not illegal. Just look at the designs from the DropShips and JumpShips book and try to make them using BS2. A good example is the Seeker. It's 3700 tons, and the 64 light vehicles weigh 3200 tons. It still goes 5/8. Ya see, in FASA's mind, sometimes ships are built with differing Techs and these ones can no longer be made. that's the excuse from BS2 (approprate name....)
My theory is as follows: The instant factories (just add water, tm) lack some ingredients, so the new ships aren't as nutricious and as a side fault, cannot mount advanced equipment. Maybe the Inner Sphere should go back to StarLeague Organic Fighter Farming. Less yeild but more quality.
Light a fire for a man, and you keep him warm for one night,
Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Acolyte
|
|
|
Extra information
|
2 registered and 81 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: 51372
|
|
|
|
|
|
|