virgileso
02/22/04 06:17 PM
165.95.94.92
|
Why is the mech designed with such a vulnerable location? This is the weakest armored section, yet the second most important location (monetarily, the center torso comes out on top). Yes, it's hard to hit it. However, when you have a good chance of the mech being defeated with every 36 shots, it makes for an anticlimatic fight. Particularly since this probability of being taken out is beyond how heavy the armor is. You could have the heaviest armored, 100 tonn, mech possible; and be taken out just as easily as the Locust if you roll luckily.
Heck, even from a design standpoint, what's wrong with putting the pilot in the torso or something...or hell, actually adding armor! If neccessary, put him between the legs if balance is an issue.
|
Nightward
02/22/04 07:26 PM
203.134.46.72
|
Therer are some Level 3 options to correct these problems. Things like Hardened Armour, Torso-Mounted Cockpits, and so on.
IMO, though, the head's "weakness" isn't really all that bad. There are relatively few head-chopping weapons out there, and that's why they're so frightening.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Shadowdancer
02/22/04 07:56 PM
24.57.59.85
|
Well, let's think of this. The head on a human being houses the brain, which is the central command unit of the human body right?
A bullet to the head is usually fatal, whereas shooting someone in, say, the leg isn't quite as likely to kill them.
Let's consider the 1 in 36 chance of striking the head. A fully armored head has 9 armor points, plus 3 internal.
The following weapons will destroy any Mech's head outright:
- Gauss Rifle
- Heavy Gauss Rifle
- AC 20
- Ultra AC 20
- LB-20X AC (slug mode)
- Clan ER PPC
- Clan Heavy Large Laser
Barring being struck in the head by the above listed weapons, a head hit does not guarantee a kill. It causes the 'Mech pilot to take a hit, and to make a subsequent consciousness check. 6 pilot hits kill the Mechwarrior inside, effectively "killing" the Mech.
If the Mechwarrior falls unconscious, then the Mech is probably going to die the next round, but this isn't automatic.
Now, let's say that an Inner Sphere PPC strikes a Masakari in the head. That's 10 damage - 9 armor points gone and 1 internal. The Masakari (Warhawk, for us Clansmen/women out there) is still alive, but now we have a few checks to make:
- Pilot hit; is this his 6th hit?
- Critical table roll; how many critical hits does the other player get?
Assuming the pilot hasn't sustained his/her 6th hit, and the other player rolls a 7 or less on the Critical Hits table, the Warhawk lives and battle continues (albeit with unwanted air conditioning)...
Now, if the player scores at least a critical hit, there is only a 1 in 6 chance of striking the mechwarrior (i.e. Cockpit - slot #3). If there's ammo stored in slot #4, that jumps to a 1 in 3 chance of death.
Consequently, if 2 critical hits are scored the odds go to 1 in 3 (and to 50% if there's ammo); and 3 critical hits, well, destroys the head regardless.
So as you can see, killing a 'Mech by destroying the head is relatively hard.
Jesus built my Mad Cat.
Edited by Shadowdancer (02/22/04 07:59 PM)
|
Gangrene
02/22/04 10:03 PM
24.6.228.14
|
I support moving the cockpit to another location or adding armor to increase mech survivability. I have seen too many good mechs go down from a gauss shot without being over-powered or tactically out-maneuvered. I don't mind mechs having weak spots, but I don't think those weak spots should be avaliable from all directions. Mechs should have a strong side to present to the enemy.
Gangrene
|
virgileso
02/22/04 11:28 PM
165.95.88.1
|
Yes, we die easily from head blows. However, humans don't design their bodies from the ground up, so we have to make do with what we were born with. Last I checked, mechs don't require genetic evolution to design, so we can apply better materials to such.
What is wrong with have the mechs have a bit more of the design structure as a vehicle. A vehicle doesn't have such extraneous and comparitively flimsy protrusions, holding such vital components. I don't see any logic to having the cockpit placed in such a position for weakness, or adding such little armor.
Granted, I don't have any books outside of the core...
|
Shadowdancer
02/22/04 11:41 PM
24.57.59.85
|
Quote:
Yes, we die easily from head blows. However, humans don't design their bodies from the ground up, so we have to make do with what we were born with. Last I checked, mechs don't require genetic evolution to design, so we can apply better materials to such.
What is wrong with have the mechs have a bit more of the design structure as a vehicle. A vehicle doesn't have such extraneous and comparitively flimsy protrusions, holding such vital components. I don't see any logic to having the cockpit placed in such a position for weakness, or adding such little armor.
Granted, I don't have any books outside of the core...
The Battlemech is molded after a standing bipedal mammal (i.e. human being). It has arms, feet, torsos, head.
Having said that, I think it's safe to assume that a Mech is a psychological representation of the warrior at the controls. Read the text on the Atlas and Executioner for more support of this.
My previous post was trying to highlight that it is not, in fact, easy to kill a 'Mech by striking its head.
You have a 1 in 36 chance of hitting it, and even then you will only kill it then and there if you're using one of the 7 weapons I listed above.
Jesus built my Mad Cat.
|
Cray
02/23/04 07:32 AM
147.160.1.5
|
The head was designed for "game balance." It was that "winning lottery ticket" that allowed even badly overmatched opponents to "cap" giant foes. Further, when BT was first released...well, there were no weapons capable of guaranteed decapitation. The PPC delivered THE most damage to one spot, 10 points, which meant it had a 1-in-5 to 1-in-6 chance of destroying the cockpit IF it hit a head with 9 points of armor. No other weapon was capable of delivering so much damage to one spot; large lasers were the runners up. At the time, ACs only came in one form, the "Autocannon."
So, the head wasn't so vulnerable, and the "winning lottery ticket" approach to letting small mechs threaten large ones added some excitement to the game.
Within a few years, the PPC had been joined by the AC/10 and AC/20. The "autocannon" of the original game was relabeled as the "AC/5." The AC/20 was the first true headcapper, but it was short ranged and had high target numbers at even moderate ranges.
Again, the head wasn't so vulnerable, and the "winning lottery ticket" approach to letting small mechs threaten large ones added some excitement to the game.
The advent of the Gauss Rifle in TR:2750 shook things up, and the LB10X introduced a new way of risking cockpit hits (cluster ammo to punch hit locations). Shortly after the TR:2750 release, the Clans took to the battlefield, and all sorts of weapons became dangerous to heads. Large Lasers in two forms notched up from 8-9 points of damage to 10, PPCs became headcappers like the GR, AC/10s gained range and became lighter, AC/20s gained range and became lighter, and then there was the targeting computer.
The layout of mechs (i.e., vulnerable head) never really caught up with that change in weaponry. Maybe it's time for a change.
There is the "center torso cockpit," introduced in Unbound and (I think) republished in MaxTech, but IMO, the CTC is even worse than the regular cockpit for a number of reasons:
1) The Center Torso gets hit a LOT more often than Head (7 times as often from the front or back, sometimes more - see point 3, below)
2) Targeting Computers enable called shots against the CT, unlike the head
3) All Damage Transfer Diagram arrows lead to Rome. Er, the center torso. None point to the head. After battle damage starts piling up, the rate of CT hits accelerates.
4) See point 1. It's worth repeating.
Even the largest mechs cannot carry enough armor to make the CTC worthwhile, IMO. I'll take the risk of being capped by a large weapon over rapid doom in a CT.
An alternate, wiser approach is "Hardened Armor," found in MaxTech, especially when combined with the optional rules in MaxTech that allow mixed armor types to be used. Give the mech Hardened Armor on the head and you can have up to (effectively) 18 points of armor on the head. That'll give you a 4-in-5 or 5-in-6 chance of surviving any 20pt damage hit to the head. Short range HGRs are still head cappers, even with a reinforced structure (which would give effectively 6 points of structure in the head), but short range HGRs can't hit the broadside of a barn. Hardened Armor mounted anywhere on the 'mech imposes a +1 to piloting skill checks, and if it's on the legs, it takes 1 MP off your mech's running score.
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.
|
Toontje
02/23/04 09:33 AM
217.123.31.80
|
People are still missing the point: 'Mechs over 70 tons are more vulnerable in the head, under 65 or less, and other locations are far more likely to fail before. There is a reason why people don't play with 100 tonners exclusively. A medium or heavy can have more or less the same payload, and be cheaper and faster, as well as being only marginally more vulnerable.
Thanks for the BT history info Mike, now I know why stingers, wasps and PHX'ses have 6 points of armour to the head, just enough to hopefully survive a LL hit.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Thor_Mech
02/23/04 09:50 AM
199.239.45.2
|
The Cyclops does have its cockpit in the torso... just thought I'd say that.
"Even after all these years, walking through the ranks of 'Mechs still gives me the chills"
- Intelligence Secretary Justin Xiang Allard
Outreach, 21, Sept 3051
|
Toontje
02/23/04 10:09 AM
217.123.31.80
|
Cyclops? Maybe you're talking about the famed trainer variant, but the Cyclops is the one with the helmet and very small cylindrical head otherwise.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Cray
02/23/04 11:36 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
People are still missing the point: 'Mechs over 70 tons are more vulnerable in the head, under 65 or less, and other locations are far more likely to fail before.
Every other location on a mech is more likely to fail than the head, even on 70+ ton mechs.
[From the front/back hit location table]
**The arms are each 5 times as likely to be hit as the head (on 2d6, there are 5 ways to roll a '10' or '11,' or '3' and '4', while there's only one way to roll a 12).
**The legs are each 4 times as likely to be hit as the head.
**The side torsos are also each 5 times as likely to be hit as the head.
**The center torso is 7 times as likely to be hit as the head.
To match the average armor protection of the head, the arms and side torsos would need 5 times as much armor. The CT would need 7 times as much armor. The legs would need 4 times as much.
At 85 tons, yes, mech legs (which can finally mount 4x the armor of heads) are less likely to fail than heads. However, no other location can match the average protection of heads.
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
02/23/04 11:39 AM
147.160.1.5
|
Quote:
The Cyclops does have its cockpit in the torso... just thought I'd say that.
Not the L1 and L2 versions. It very much has a head-mounted cockpit. As the TR:3025 description says:
Quote:
Though the Cyclops' head section is armored as heavily as its internal structure can handle, the armor is somewhat inadequate. In battle situations, most enemy 'Mechs will automatically aim at the head of a Cyclops, knowing that any hits or even near misses could damage or disable the sophisticated command and control equipment located there, as well as doing the usual damage to the MechWarrior inside.
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.
|
Shadowdancer
02/23/04 12:14 PM
24.57.59.85
|
Why would a 70 ton mech be more subsceptible to head hits?...
Jesus built my Mad Cat.
|
virgileso
02/23/04 12:38 PM
165.95.88.1
|
I believe he is referring to the overall difference that a 70+ ton mech has in armor compared to its lesser brethren, even internally speaking. An 80 ton mech has just as much armor as a 30 ton mech, making it's head more vulnerable comparitively; and head shots against heavy mechs have MUCH greater effect than they do to smaller ones, making the loss a very big item to gulp down.
|
Toontje
02/23/04 03:02 PM
217.123.31.80
|
Hmm I never went down that exacly when I said the head is least protected on assaults (more or less). But as you put it, the head is well protected except for lucky hits. Relatively it may be among the best locations, absolute it's dangerous to have headcoppers on the other side.
Altrough, using a Ti Ts'ang, I'd rather go for the CT(r) than the head to land the 24 dmg on... I find it more fullfilling to CTcore the opposition than headcap.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Thor_Mech
02/25/04 07:27 PM
205.187.178.206
|
Sorry. I was reading Operation Excaliber, and it says on page 306 -
"It seemed odd for the 'Mech to be still moving after complete decapitation, but the Cyclops had been designed with its cockpit sheltered in its upper torso, and nothing but sensors and electronics packed into the diminutive, one-eyed head."
"Even after all these years, walking through the ranks of 'Mechs still gives me the chills"
- Intelligence Secretary Justin Xiang Allard
Outreach, 21, Sept 3051
|
Cray
02/26/04 06:10 AM
68.200.107.8
|
Quote:
Sorry. I was reading Operation Excaliber, and it says on page 306 -
"It seemed odd for the 'Mech to be still moving after complete decapitation, but the Cyclops had been designed with its cockpit sheltered in its upper torso, and nothing but sensors and electronics packed into the diminutive, one-eyed head."
Huh. Who was the author for 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.
|
Grizzly
02/26/04 03:48 PM
12.108.119.227
|
William H. Keith jr. was the author for Operation Excalibur. I don't recall the passage, but I haven't read it in a while.
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
tgsofgc
02/27/04 04:22 AM
67.4.202.153
|
Personally I love the head, as Cray has said it is safest place on the mech. Generally you only have to worry about lucky head chopping and paper cut assassins. This means I tend to keep ammo there, cause I don't feel the need to worry without case. It also makes for a nice lore hook, with the pilot litterally sitting on a ton of High Explosive ballistic shells.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
tgsofgc
02/27/04 04:29 AM
67.4.202.153
|
Nice summary though don't forget the cheese force UK tech: the armored cowl. It basically was a way of mounting extra armor around 3 out of the four sides of the head.
Personally if you really want to mess with rebalancing the whole game and making an entirely new universe I'd consider making the head's internal structure related to mech weight... and as a result the amount of armor it can mount there. Of course this opinion stems largely from my bordom with tons of mechs all with 9 or 8 head armor.
A good possible solution, again if you are rewriting the game/universe, would be a battlemech can mount 1 pt of armor in its head for each 10 tons it weighs rounded up.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
SSFSX17
03/08/04 01:03 AM
128.195.93.199
|
"If neccessary, put him between the legs if balance is an issue."
I'm trying to imagine a bunch of Locusts and Jenners kicking each other in the crotch. I'm also imagining an Atlas grabbing an Urbie, ripping off its only two weapons, and shouting "SUCK IT!"
The Clans, of course, would consider the act of kicking the [censored]-pit in between the legs extremely dishonorable... but it's totally okay if a sleek rounded mech does it to a tall angular mech.
Lousy good-for-nothing mortals. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
|
Sauragnmon
03/08/04 09:42 PM
24.43.67.18
|
I personally like the concept of the Torso cockpit. But as you not-so-gentle men are mentioning, that's only in level 3 battletech. Now also mentioned in Level 3, while we're at it, is the option of Armored Components. Where you pay a little ammount to give certain components on mechs a little more critical damage reduction. Of course, armored components are all individual. IIRC, if you pay three tonnes, you armor the cockpit, allowing it to essentially forget the first critical hit to that location. That gives your pilot a little more survivability. If you're so concerned with the safety of the pilot, and you've got no qualms with level 3 rules... just build the mech with hardened armor, a torso mounted cockpit, and then armor the damn thing. It's just an idea. Oh yeah, and you can also harden the structure too, just to give yourself a little more abuse reduction.
|
SSFSX17
03/17/04 03:42 AM
128.195.93.199
|
A torso-mounted cockpit is one thing. It makes sense. What I was talking about was a cockpit between the legs. That's not exactly "torso-mounted." That's something else entirely. And as I have speculated, mounting the cockpit between the legs would have dire consequences. If you consider that part of a 'mech's body to be part of the Center Torso, then maybe you could consider putting Hardened armor on it to help. But as I see it, a cockpit between the legs is basically taking the head off the top and putting it on the... bottom? Front? Who knows.
At least the curvaceous sleek 'mechs wouldn't do too badly, since their cockpits would be mostly contained entirely within their own bodies. But then it becomes easy for infantry, battlearmors, or elementals to stand right under such a mech and shoot up the heat sink exhaust port, which I imagine is not fun for the pilot.
Lousy good-for-nothing mortals. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
|
tgsofgc
03/24/04 02:32 AM
67.4.201.25
|
Why not mount the cockpit on the mechs back. Afterall the mech's rear, judging from armor placement, should see extremely limited action, which isn't a problem with those fancy sensors all over the mechs. Then you would only need to worry about head hits from lighter more manueverable designs, which rarely have "head choppers," and can be intimitated by a few rear mount medium lasers.
Feel free to discuss, but realize I am just saying this for discussion. I personally don't plan on running much further with rearranging mech heads than I already have.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
Gangrene
03/24/04 10:07 PM
24.6.228.14
|
I agree. I have been toying with an idea like this for a while, and I think it would improve the game. Having such a glaring weak spot can and has ruined a player who has better equipment and tactics. If I wanted a game where luck decides the winner, I could go to Vegas.
Gangrene
|
Toontje
03/25/04 05:37 AM
217.123.31.80
|
Having a weak spot only makes better players, as people start trying to minimise the importance of weak spots, and thus become better players.
Even loss of 25% of a force should be overcomeable, if you still outsmart the opposition. Other weak spots that can be exploited are min range, ammo shortages, movement.. More important IMO than a headcapping shot. Thats why I have more fear for a well-used heavy than a 3/5 assault, no matter the good stuff it's mounting.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Lone_Wolf_Radick
07/06/04 12:56 PM
65.1.53.170
|
The weak spot is there to remind you that no one thing, mechanical or living, is perfect or the end all to modern warfare... Game balance seems to be another way of saying "don't just use Atlases" (does anyone else seem to take the heads off Atlases more than any other design?) ... Perhaps it's there to encourage more mixed forces, or shorter games, or perhaps FASA took a page from reality and decided that nothing was without weakness... Achilles through the M1A3 Abrams, all had (or have) their relative weak points... AS for the Head matter, why not simply make Remote Controlled or Even Completely Autonomous mechs for situations when head-chopping is a big concern? Or have mechs with "hands" in effect carry large slab "shields" to raise over it's "face" much as ancient knights did? Perhaps that's a bit too far, and perhaps I've posted to a dead thread... but there's my 2 cents anyways...
War Never Determines who is right, only who is left.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing-Darth Vader"
|
Marshall
07/09/04 10:29 AM
63.92.109.183
|
Quote:
I agree. I have been toying with an idea like this for a while, and I think it would improve the game. Having such a glaring weak spot can and has ruined a player who has better equipment and tactics. If I wanted a game where luck decides the winner, I could go to Vegas.
Well, have you heard the phrase, 'stuff happens?' It does, in BT, and it's just one of those things. Some games, like the one I played yesterday, I rolled a key head shot w/a Clan ER PPC, which helped in taking out a Masakari. Other games, all I get for 12's is SRM hits, or not at all. Dice are something we can't control, and don't seem to follow statistics when they should. When I go for punch hit locations, 1 in 6 should hit the head, right? You'd think that, but it sometimes doesn't go the way you want. Luck plays a part in all games, even those that don't have dice.
Marshall
|
Marshall
07/09/04 10:34 AM
63.92.109.183
|
Quote:
Having a weak spot only makes better players, as people start trying to minimise the importance of weak spots, and thus become better players.
Even loss of 25% of a force should be overcomeable, if you still outsmart the opposition. Other weak spots that can be exploited are min range, ammo shortages, movement.. More important IMO than a headcapping shot. Thats why I have more fear for a well-used heavy than a 3/5 assault, no matter the good stuff it's mounting.
Sound statement, and that's why now since I've started back playing again I try to stay away from the slow boys. Speed in this game is key, not just for target modifiers, but for quickly redeploying to another part of the map so quickly, or use some terrain to your advantage.
Marshall
|
Gangrene
07/09/04 08:20 PM
24.6.228.14
|
The amount by which luck affects the outcome of the came is dictated by the rules. Luck already has plenty of influence in the to-hit rolls, piloting rolls, hit location rolls, etc. There is no need to add such a glaring flaw as the head.
Gangrene
|
Cray
07/09/04 08:53 PM
24.50.80.39
|
Quote:
There is no need to add such a glaring flaw as the head.
In L2 or L3 play? Maybe not. In L1, it was reasonable. 9pts of armor on a location hit 1/7th as often as the CT and when there was one (1) headcapping weapon...it didn't matter so much.
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.
|
Gangrene
07/10/04 11:47 AM
24.6.228.14
|
Quote:
In L2 or L3 play? Maybe not. In L1, it was reasonable. 9pts of armor on a location hit 1/7th as often as the CT and when there was one (1) headcapping weapon...it didn't matter so much.
I agree in L1 heads were reasonable. With the exception of an AC/20 hit, the head had to take a minimum of 2 shots before the mech was 'capped. Now with GR's, HGR's, and clan ER PPC's there are plenty of opportunities to get a mech killed with a single shot. With L2 and L3 I don't see heads as reasonable.
A lot of people seem to think that downgrading weapons is the solution. However, I personally don't find a wargame where every weapon is dinkey very appetizing. There's nothing wrong with kickass weapons.
The rear arc provides weak spots in mechs armor, the chance for a crit on the hit chart provides the "stuff happens" element of gameplay, so I see no reason to keep heads around. IMO, they should be dumped
Gangrene
Edited by Gangrene (07/10/04 11:48 AM)
|
DragonBuster
07/10/04 08:06 PM
207.69.137.207
|
it is all luck of the dice.
as for me I like the weakness and as a fomer Merc I loved it when I killed those lyran scum with Gauss Rifle hit's to the head.
so I do not mind at all for the weakness.
"I am the Death Wind
I am the Keeper of souls
I am the enemy of those who cause
to wreak evil upon the World"
|
DragonBuster
07/10/04 08:10 PM
207.69.137.207
|
I know a few people who nailed an enemy in the head with all 20 LRMs befor.
luck of the dice but then again it was that stupied fool's fault for hidding behind low cover abd leaving his head sticking out like a bullz's eye..but then again lyrans are not all that bright ether 
"I am the Death Wind
I am the Keeper of souls
I am the enemy of those who cause
to wreak evil upon the World"
|
Minnime
07/16/04 04:18 PM
217.229.98.15
|
Swap 1 internal structure from LT/RT to the head, reduce their max armor by 3, increase the head by 6, there you go, or move one CT structure & 3 armor points to the head.
Wouldn't call it imbalanced, but however, you *will* miss those armor points soon enough there.
Your Pilot hardly dies there anyway. Disabled Mech, but I prefer a disabled (head off) to a disabled "engine blown off" mech anytime anywhere, exspecially if it is a XL engine...
There is no rule saying (in your game) that you can't put more structure / armor on the head, if you just move it from somewhere else you don't imbalance it.
In combat 9/10 of the mechs I saw die, died by LT/RT/CT hits, not headchop offs.
Minni
|
Greyslayer
07/16/04 07:32 PM
216.14.192.234
|
I've killed mechwarriors without even breaching the head (or any other location or even rolling a critical). Does that mean you want to nerf damage rules to mechwarriors when relating to when a mech takes damage to the head as well?
That was the last time someone laughed at me for fielding the LB10 Nightstar instead of the Gauss version 
|
JaguarDragoon
08/17/04 01:02 AM
24.199.101.86
|
Well, putting more armor protection for the head could be a problem with existing mech designs as they would lose balance or look stupid. For example, too much armor for the head of a timber wolf would make it lose balance where it is and on an atlas increasing armor would make the head too big for its chassis and make it look like a peep boy's mascot.
In reality, wouldn't there be good snipers in a hollander or a pack hunter to take out the head with a few well placed shots where ever the head is. If not, an axman coming up with a good, clean, well aimed swing. Maybe not for mech with their heads up high like an atlas.
Ofcourse battletech is not reality, its a game and sciencefiction story. Reality is warped so the mechs can look good and to create balance so there are no cheap battlefield gods like there are in the US military.
|
Silenced_Sonix
10/09/04 02:18 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Someone here mentioned the cowl from the UK MechForce guys - anyone have any rules on exactly how it functions, what it does, etc?
Evolve or Die
|
Toontje
10/10/04 04:23 PM
82.73.138.10
|
Except for the front, the head has 3 extra armour IIRC. (4 maybe?)
Rather to blow up, then.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 79 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: 20327
|
|
|
|
|
|
|