Karagin
10/02/02 04:07 AM
63.173.170.125
|
None of the ships in AT2 are illegal. Sorry but I can say this with fact since I spent a weekend entering them to check the program out as did others as did Randal.
So how about you stop saying that the program is not following the rules and wake up and understand that it is.
Better still why don't you drop the $$$ for it and then you will for your self...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:13 AM
216.14.192.226
|
'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.'
I am aware of the example on 125. It helps support the 'anywhere on the map idea'. The example on 127 however has 4 attacking mechs and one defending mech with ECM, it specifically deals with LOS (as given in the ECM description about C3) and the affect of LOS on the Master unit. If LOS is blocked then the master cannot communicate with the slave units regardless of what is blocking LOS (its funny how it actually went out of its way to explain that in the ECM section though even if the ECM doesn't jam the master still requires LOS to work?) Why not just say it always needs to do this or that is only ever has to use the indirect approach.
One or the other thats all it should ever had been. Because of this wishy-washyness I treat the master as that it MUST maintain LOS with all units of its force to maintain an effective netword to all nodes otherwise any node not having direct LOS to the Master carrying unit loses network coherency.
Greyslayer ... clear as mud can be it is.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 04:13 AM
67.36.181.236
|
Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see changes have been made. Nobody's challenging that.
So Rick made a program that's forward compatable. Good for him. He has less code to change (if any) when the FAQ comes out.
It still doesn't make the designs legal right now. Those designs that have ECM were introduced in 1992, in TRO: 3055. Working backwards from that, the rules were last codified in The BattleTech Compendium (with the TWolf and Toad on the cover). It simply states to use the equipment listed on the charts therein. And those rules were from AeroTech. Flipping forward a few years, to '96, we have BattleSpace. It also states to use its charts, but doesn't list any equipment. So BattleSpace made those designs illegal, and AT2 continued. Why those OmniFighters were not adjusted has me scratching my head, I guess Bryan missed it. But that's not the only discrepency involving illegal equipment mounted on a fighter. Technically, the Hydaspes variant listed in TRO:3067 is not legal, since the equipment charts do not list the Clan TarComp. However, you could make an arguement that the language in AT2 (" AeroTech 2 (AT2) is designed first as a supplement for BattleTech..." -p4, AT2), and Field Manual: Federated Suns ("All of these items are for use in Level 2 BattleTech..." -p158, FM:FS; as well as "Inner Sphere targeting computers follow the rules for Clan targeting computers..." -p161, FM:FS) grandfather the Clan TarComps into the designs.
"Thanks for you input...I will file it with the NO group."
Ya know, I never did answer your original question. Lemme go do that, so you can be sure you can place me in the proper group.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:17 AM
63.173.170.15
|
I am sorry Peter, but it is you who is wrong about this. Everything in the HMAERO Program was run by Chris and Randal, thus it is all legal.
I am sorry you wouldn't or can't see or understand that, but until Rick changes things because Randal said they had to be changed I am sticking with program and that fact that I know it's correct. You can do as you please.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:19 AM
63.173.170.15
|
The drop it, and don't comment anymore and leave the thread and find something else to do...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:28 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Whoa someone has gotten a bee in your 3025 bonnet (and such a fetching bonnet it must be  ).
Seriously though You could understand one or two errors on units total but several? Either the equipment is illegal or it isn't, which is it? They left it far too open and because of this and the examples of fighters they have included that have equipment which is not discussed in the book then it must be legal to mount equipment on aerospace units (as such it doesn't directly state that the ECM and BAP are illegal items just those weapons and equipment not listed in the book and funnily enough ECM and BAP is listed since it is included in units in the book  ).
All this loophole logic is getting to me though ... me need a dose of bailing wire-tech! (3025 games for those who don't get it)
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:30 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Actually there is that bit about having multiple ECMs on a unit being illegal in level 2 play that Rick didn't pick up on...... so errors do exist just not what the others seem to be thinking.
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 04:31 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"One area I am having trouble with is how many ECM units should be put on the vessel"
One every 195 meters along a single plane of the craft (I would suggest one that bisects the K-F Core that runs at a right angle to the decks and parallel with a set of walls-easier that way), with concentric ring of ECM emitters that use the original set placed as guide points. That way you can surround the craft as well as anything that can get its entire body within that 195 meter bubble. You know, fighters and small craft and the like.
"as well as how many Beagle Probes."
It would be a similiar arrangement as ECM systems here, but you would replace the distance numbers with 135 meters (165 meters if you felt inclined to use Clantech).
I can understand wanting the ECM, seeing how that might actually do something against Artemis-enhanced missile systems (though no longer receiving mid-course corrections for the final 195 meters after flying up to 360,000 (108,000 meters for SRMs) really doesn't seem that important with a target as large as a WarShip). But what's the purpose of the BAPs? I mean, are you expecting to find a target hidden in the stark nakedness of an AT2 battlefield? And using systems that can't even reach the far end of a craft, let alone another hex?
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:37 AM
63.173.170.15
|
Given that each section of the ship can have numerous bays that should and seems to mean that the ECM units are in a single bay thus not all in one single location.
And if you check Max Tech under the ECCM rules it meantions something about ECM being used in on or the other setting not both thus it would suggest that you could place two ECM units on a mech, one for ECM use and the other to counter the other guy's ECM...
Maybe what needs to be done is a total rewrite for the ENTIRE ECM rule set and then all of the loopholes and such cna be dealt with...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:40 AM
63.173.170.15
|
BAPs are more for their BETTER senor system...adds to what ever the ship already has kind of idea...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:41 AM
216.14.192.226
|
How about a 'drone frigate' like from Homeworld. I mean they have drone tech on the ground with all those little things so why not drone ECMs that can make a large bubble around the frigate and thus protect anything else in its larger bubble?
'But what's the purpose of the BAPs? I mean, are you expecting to find a target hidden in the stark nakedness of an AT2 battlefield? And using systems that can't even reach the far end of a craft, let alone another hex? '
Maybe a deepspace mine-sweeper? Seriously if you haven't detected something over the last several thousand kilometers than the last hundred meters or so isn't going to matter
Hang on I know what a BAP would be handy on!!! A deep space garbage scowl. Of course having a BAP on a aerospace fighter or say space station might protect it a bit from 'trojan' ships carrying cargo it shouldn't be (such as mechs). I can't see it being useful in combat though.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:49 AM
216.14.192.226
|
ECCM is entirely level 3. The rule I quoted is level 2 and was in material after Max Tech was released. All there would need to be is to allow unlimited ECMs in level3 design but only 1 in level 2 design. It is seriously that simple. Of course the functionality of ECCMs and Stealth armour was poorly dealt with earlier this year so if they do deal with ECM again maybe they could explain a little better how ECCM can jam a ECM but not jam a ECM (as the example of stealth armour supposedly still working even after it was jammed....BS). While they are at it they could go over C3 again its just plain wrong .
Greyslayer ... why not rewrite the whole bloody book again
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:52 AM
63.173.170.41
|
Er...drone warships are already accounted for...recall the Caspair Drones of the vaunted SDS system that portects Terra...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 04:53 AM
67.36.181.236
|
It's a definitation thing.
Take a careful look at the wording in the ECM effects on C3 networks on page 126. It says "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." Now go to page 25, where the term LOS is defined (as it applies to BattleTech). "The LOS between two units is defined by a straight line running from the center of the attacking unit's hex to the center of the target unit's hex." In its purest form, it is simple a line measured from point A to point B on a map. Also, in the line above that section, it specifies that an attack can only be made if there is a clear LOS (this is important).
Now flip back to 126, same part as before. Nowhere will you find mention that you must have a clear LOS. All you do is trace the LOS from the Master unit to the Slave unit. If that line starts, ends, or passes through a hex that is under the effect of an enemy ECM system, the C3 link betwen the two units is severed.
As additional strength, I will point out again the example on page 125. The 'Mech in Hex D does not have a clear LOS to the 'Mech in Hex B, yet is still able to use the targeting information from the 'Mech in Hex B and fire at the 'Mech in Hex A as if the range were only two hexes (though that point of woods does still apply).
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 04:55 AM
216.14.192.226
|
No no no .... drones as in small vessels probably about the size of a very small fighter. I gather you have never seen or played Homeworld on the PC then?
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
10/02/02 04:58 AM
63.173.170.41
|
Seen it, have to play it...I followed what you meant. was pointing out that Drones have already been done for warships so to speak...
Now a whole wing or more of drone fighters would be interesting....and yes I know what show that idea came from... 
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 05:00 AM
216.14.192.226
|
I'm pretty sure it continues to define LOS on the rest of page 25 and page 26 that includes other variables that it takes into account (and then there is of course the 'sight' bit on line of sight ) ie LOS must not be obstructed by trees and so on.
Don't know about you but LOS usually means that I can physically see the target
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:12 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"I mean they have drone tech on the ground with all those little things so why not drone ECMs that can make a large bubble around the frigate and thus protect anything else in its larger bubble?"
The only drones I know of in BTech are the remote-operated vehicles, but I don't see how they would help here. And these bubbles don't get bigger as you add more ECM nodes. You can just cover a larger area. It's simply placing them close enough so their coverage areas overlap slightly. Actually, you'll end up covering the surface of the WarShip with something that looks like a cellular network.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:16 AM
67.36.181.236
|
How do you deal with the range limitations? BAPs are only good for 135 meters in any direction. That means if you mount one on the nose of your Nightlord, I can hide from it and still be standing on the outer hull of the very same WarShip.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:19 AM
67.36.181.236
|
Would you agree with me that if you found yourself in those situtations (a Level 2 hill or three points of Woods or what have you), you would have yourself an obstructed LOS? Just a simple yes or no will do.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 05:23 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Yes.
That is what LOS means to me.
Greyslayer
|
Karagin
10/02/02 05:26 AM
63.173.170.41
|
Range...the biggest gray area in the game...
IF each section of the ship has the ship's sensors and a BAP, I doubt you will be hiding since one or the other would have found you...and as you pointed it out this is space....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:28 AM
67.36.181.236
|
And if those objects were not there, you would have a Clear LOS? Again, just a yes or no.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 05:29 AM
63.173.170.41
|
I am I reading this right...Peter forgot about the SDS drones of the Reagan System around Terra????!!???
All those Caspair Drones must be heart broken that they are forgotten about....   
And then there is the Boomerange Spotter Plane...but I think that one is now manned...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 05:32 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Of course.
Get to your point. I can see where you are going but several short answers waste other peoples bandwidth
Greyslayer
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:33 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"IF each section of the ship has the ship's sensors and a BAP, I doubt you will be hiding since one or the other would have found you"
The active radar systems on a WarShip can get a return on a target out to 100,000 kilometers. The Active Probe can do that same thing, but only to 135 meters. How will the second improve upon the first?
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Karagin
10/02/02 05:39 AM
63.173.170.41
|
Call it redunancy to avoid being caught with your pants around your ankles...that or we could go back to the two rubber bands and the gerbirl trick...
If one misses the what ever it is, then the other system SHOULD catch it...guess that depends on who is writing the story...
And given the other "fluff" abilities of the BAP add in what you want as to what it can do etc...
Never said this was the best idea in the world, just an idea...  
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:40 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"Get to your point."
If you insist. I studied law for about three semesters on top of my main field, every now and then it's fun to use the old skills.
The term LOS, as defined and used by BattleTech, is independent of actual line of sight. In that case, the term "Clear LOS" is used. However, you have shortened that to simply "LOS" for redundancy issues. Just like me and pretty much everybody else I know. The problem is that BattleTech uses the term "Clear LOS" to describe a clear view of your target, "Obstructed LOS" to describe an interrupted view of your target, and "LOS" to simply describe the line between you and your target. In this last example, whether you can or cannot actually see your target is irrellevent, as that is covered by the first two terms.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
PeterSmith
10/02/02 05:44 AM
67.36.181.236
|
"Never said this was the best idea in the world, just an idea"
Indeed.
Peter Smith
Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.
|
Greyslayer
10/02/02 06:03 AM
216.14.192.226
|
Maybe you should deal with this method of describing more often . It certainly made more sense to me that way. Of course I covered this angle in my earlier post by saying 'unless they have used a different definition of LOS for this' in which they obviously did. (*mutters under breath* the b$%^ards).
Greyslayer
|