Cray
11/30/01 09:42 PM
12.78.130.20
|
Alternate movement rules:
Allowing low cost facing changes without altering velocity (made it into BS, at least).
Allowing vector-based movement.
Never tinkered with to-hit numbers.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
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
11/30/01 10:13 PM
207.43.144.58
|
Noting the lack of hard points in AT and AT2 my group came up with some rules for these and one of my friends took the idea to the extreme and did up the idea for all units in the game, to include mechs and vehicles.
This idea allows fighters to actually carry oradance other then built in items and it allows the fighters to get a bit of flexibilty without the cost of going omni...now if I can find the rules and dig them up...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
11/30/01 11:14 PM
24.44.238.206
|
In conjunction with my addition of a naval--not ground--power (the Stellar Union) to my BT universe, I've been changing whole hunks of stuff. It started partly because (IMHO) the weapons and warship construction in BattleSpace were broken. After working some, I finally got AT2 to find that though things were rebalanced, they were rebalanced the other way--making warships even less effective.
At any rate: my changes are mainly centered in construction. I've been doing a lot of reverse-engineering and guessing (thanks to Excel, wonderful help that it is). Other changes include: incorporating those thrust-based to-hit modifiers plus expanded evasion rules, adding size modifiers, using a modified set of missile rules (inspired by Froggie's), and, in conjuction with the missile rules, adding EW rules (i.e, target locks, datalinks, ECM modifiers) and using a whole seperate firing process for missiles and directed energy weapons (i.e., everything else).
The main change for the missiles is, besides adding them as such, splitting fire resolution a number of phases, including acquisition, missile and DEW point defense (including other ships in the datalink), and countermeasures and decoys.
Datalinks are sort of like C3 networks but also effect target locks and point defense.
Location targeting rules are changed to include location-specific shots (i.e. standard Battletech rules), called shots (aiming low, high, left, right, etc.) The modifiers also decrease when you fire from a lower scale to a higher scale.
The construction rules have been overhauled; I've replaced the tables with formulae (i.e., no more McKennas that use the same tons/burn-day as Vincents...) and added rules for the above goodies. Also I'm adding a whole new class of weapons (the existing capital ones are renamed "naval" and new capital ones added) with firepower maxing in the ~6000 standard range. Armor and SI and their relationship gets changed too. More computer-related stuff has also been added, to interface with the above-described datalinks and other electronic wizardry and to do more of the crew functions (i.e., maintenance, gunnery) of the ship.
In summary, I've rebalanced the other way--making warships more effective. They're still not nearly as effective as one would expect by scaling up standard Battletech units (i.e., mechs and fighters) but they're not the 1%-as-efficient tragedies they were before.
Plus a whole new (Stellar Union) tech level, nearly matched by their "Mysterious Foes" (c).
-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
11/30/01 11:16 PM
207.43.144.58
|
Now this is interesting...I like your ideas. Very nice.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
11/30/01 11:29 PM
24.44.238.206
|
Thanks :D
Completed rules will be posted soon...
Just finishing up the formulae for weapon efficiency, maintenance, etc.
That reminds me--another thing added is a spinal mount, a rail gun or particle cannon mounted along the spine of the ship. Using the formulae, the ship generator will calculate, for a given type, damage, and range, how massive, hot, etc. the weapon will be.
-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
11/30/01 11:36 PM
207.43.144.58
|
Did you give any look at the RL Leviathan rules? They have some nice things that I wish were in Battlespace, but some of their stuff is way out there as far as BTech tech goes....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
12/01/01 01:25 AM
134.121.144.40
|
We had a few ideas.
More armor locations for fighters. Armor limits for fighters. Integrated fighter and dropship construction. Fuel that makes sense....
Missiles, rockets, and gun pods for bomb slots.
Physically accurate movement (that is 10 thrust points moves you 5 and accelerates you 10.) Targeting modifiers based on net acceleration vector (rather than thrust expended.)
True 3-d on a double-planed hexboard.
Making naval weapons better than non-naval weapons for naval engagements.
bringing btech style ranges back.
Anything you find interesting?
-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
12/01/01 01:44 AM
134.121.144.40
|
The thing is, since noone in my group plays, I've never had a chance to try any of these notions out, nor incentive to fully develop them.
-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
12/01/01 10:56 AM
134.121.149.97
|
I've used AS fighters once or twice, but never using more advanced or variant rules. AT2 isn't a ground-support game. It's about dogfighting.
-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
12/01/01 12:57 PM
24.44.238.206
|
Using all but the 3D rules--though I wish I had the space ( ) to do that too.
The aspect/velocity modifier--how did you handle that?
My idea was to multiply aspect ('s modifier) by velocity ('s modifier). I.e.:
Aspect
0-30 0
30-60 1
60-120 2
120-210 1
240-300 2
300-330 1
330-0 0
(Former in degrees)
And then subtract the two velocity vectors
Magnitude of the Difference Vector
0-5 -1
5-15 0
15-30 +1
30-50 +2
50+ +3
So, you multiply these two modifiers together to get the Aspect/Velocity modifier.
-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
12/02/01 10:40 PM
63.173.170.11
|
How did your idea on that complicate things?
I will find the rules and post them...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Bob_Richter
12/03/01 01:28 AM
134.121.144.40
|
Responding to myself.
Some of my rules, in their present state of development. Feel free to expand upon them, bash them, revise them, ignore them, whatever, as you see fit.
1) More armor locations for fighters.
Use AT1 Armor locations and hitloc tables. Probably better use AT1 crit rules while you're at it.
2) Armor limits for fighters.
Armor Tonnage MAY NOT EXCEED SI.
3) Integrated fighter and dropship construction.
Very little on this. Just a fledgling idea I'd like someone to do something with. Please? Pretty please? I'll pay you? No...wait...no I won't.
While you're at it, integrate rules for Warships, Dropships, Space Stations, Standard Jumpships, and Aerospace Fighters. That would be just YUMMY. I'd do it myself, but...
(insert lame-ass excuse)
4) Fuel that makes sense....
Get some division by tonnage into the TP/T calc. This will really mess up Warships, but will be a big bonus for light fighters.
Remove the Heat Expansion Fuel System Rules (which are nonsensical) and make sure the exit velocity of reaction mass from the engine is LESS than the speed of light.
5) Missiles, rockets, and gun pods for bomb slots.
Missiles:
1 Shot LRM-5, Thunderbolt-5, or SRM-4 in any bomb slot.
Rockets:
1 RL-10 in any bomb slot (ignore standard +1 to-hit)
Gun Pod:
RCP (Rotary Cannon Pod):
Functions as RAC, but cannot be unjammed in the field. Range as MG. Damage as MG. 50 rounds ammunition.
Can be mounted on any bomb slot.
Bomb slot weapons may be fired only IN PLACE of a fighter's onboard weaponry and suffers a +1 to-hit.
6) Physically accurate movement
When thrusting, apply 1x thrust value to your velocity counter along the appropriate vector, but MOVE your ship only half that value (rounding down.)
This actually allows jumpships' and space stations' station-keeping drives to eventually get them somewhere. (yaay) Though they still don't seem to be able to turn. (hmm...)
Example: At the beginning of turn 5, Shilone Fighter E is moving at 9 hexes/turn travelling in the opposite direction of its facing. By applying 9 points of thrust, I reduce the fighter's velocity to zero, but move it only 4 hexes toward its nose. (causing a net movement of 5 backward.)
7) Targeting modifiers based on net acceleration vector (rather than thrust expended.)
Net acceleration vector incorporates two concepts: how much thrust was expended, and in which direction.
Basically, NAV is the net change in your velocity vector over the course of a turn.
Not quite sure how to deal with this yet, but when I remember some geometry, I will be.
8) True 3-d on a double-planed hexboard.
A pain in the ass. Has anyone ever played Flightmare? If you have, you have some idea what I'm talking about.
Anyway, you set out two maps. On one of them is contained the "x-axis" (which are the hexes that move in a nice, straight line parallel to the edges of the mapsheet) and the "y-axis". We call this the "xy plane mapsheet" and AT2 rules are as normal.
On the other is the old, familiar "x-axis" as well as the "z-axis" and a copy of our minis aligned along the "x-axis" This is the "xz plane axis" and AT2 rules are as normal.
Now, the trouble is with ranges. Again, I've forgotten all the geometry I ever learned, so I'm not sure how to combine weapons ranges on the xy and xz planes.
9) Making naval weapons better than non-naval weapons for naval engagements.
Um. Make naval weapons hurt more.
10) bringing btech style ranges back.
Use Btech style weapons ranges, instead of Fire Factors and Range Categories. Nuts to those, anyway.
-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
12/03/01 04:04 AM
134.121.144.40
|
2) Seems to provide a reasonable limit for fighter armor. Also penalizes big slow things and gives bonuses to small fast things. I like this.
3) Damn. Oh well.
4) Abandoning fuel in tactical game. Yes. that makes sense.
Thrust points DIVIDED by tonnage. thus a 20 ton fighter would have more thrust points per ton than a 100 ton fighter.
5) AT2 already has Arrow IV munitions, IIRC. Yes, they're unimpressive. What did you expect for a ton apiece? (I should have made that rocket launcher an RL-20, probably. Damn my eyes.)
7) Okay, that makes sense. And it's easier anyway.
8) Some people like this kind of realism. Hm. Tables....
9) Current FASA designs are bunk. But that kind of range difference would certainly make the big tonnages make sense. How about "May only be used within own hex", while limiting naval guns to outside that range?
Except when using AT-sized (500m) hexes, of course.
Now, how to deal with the firing 1/10 sec vs firing 1/60 sec....
hm. 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.
:)
|
NathanKell
12/03/01 08:50 PM
24.44.238.206
|
1. Why? It'll slow you down when you do fleet actions (a carrier division is a minimum :D). Though I can understand the use of this for duelling--but if you're going there, why not use these rules?
2. Why? The structure doesn't care whether the tonnage is from armor, weapons, engine, or whatever. If you mean to make the game more lethal, up the weapon damage. If you mean to balance fighters against mechs--good luck ;)
3. Working on the former...the latter, now, that's tough. Everything but fighters and [civilian] space stations can be integrated fine. Civilian space stations are just, well, different, and fighters need their own little bits. It's possible to integrate them all, though.
4. Do you really want fuel that masses 6000x what it does now? ;) I've compromised by using 19.75/100,000 * tonnage for tons / burn-day, which is simply scaling the FASA equation. If you use 45.25% for the KF drive and 50% for the fuel [which you'd need for a reasonable transit time]--where do you put everything else? If you really want technically correct fuel call the FASA transit drive a light drive and use a T-B/D of 0.00135 * mass (which is close enough).
5. This is dependent on your opinion of PDWs.
6. Or double velocity and halve hex sizes. Or just use a tape measure and pick a scale. Perhaps 1cm=8820m.
7. Waaaaallllllll.....this IMO gets aspect wrong (at least for guns). Multiply the maginitude of Vsub1 - Vsub2 by an aspect modfiier. Of course this changes for missile purposes where 180deg aspect is worst.
8. Check.
9. Much more. Check. Easy fix? Multiply (capital) damage and armor by 30, which will make naval weapons slightly more effective than their range counterparts. Multiply missile FFs by 2 afterwards (i.e., 60). As a side effect this allows warships to survive the nasty external one-shot fighter weapons (torpedoes away!) you've previously allowed for.
10. You want something in-between? Use a "base" range, i.e. the short range of most weapons. Then multiply by 2 for medium, 3 for long, and 4 for extreme. This way you get to keep the simple 1-number-per-weapon range of BS as well as the each-weapon-has-its-own-range feel of BT.
-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
12/03/01 09:11 PM
24.44.238.206
|
Last bit--10s vs. 60s.
My suggestion: Use three scales, 10s (ground), 20s (air), and 60s (space). Ground units firing at aircraft can only line up a shot once every 20s; in space you can fire up to 3x, with a +2 modifier the second and +4 for the third. As in, you only get one "good" shot per 60s (due to ECM, jinking, etc.) but you can fire more often if you want to.
Another way is to use 10s for infantry weapons and 20s (every other turn) for vehicle weapons, and the above excuse and 0/+2/+4 rules for space.
-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
12/04/01 12:39 AM
63.173.170.141
|
Personally I disgree on the weight thing, but we don't need to point out Chris's mistakes too much.
I will post the Load Point Oradance rules before Friday...so then you can look them over and see if they help you out.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Deathshadow
12/06/01 03:36 AM
24.61.78.77
|
I'm working on a set of rules right now.
First off, I discarded most all the existing rules for movement and combat (sorry, but they suck bad). Only thing I'm keeping from AT2 is how damage is dealt, and I'm expanding on the Abstract combat system, which is more 'realistic' than manuevering on a map. (I'm sorry, but playing dogfights on a 2d map is just retarded.)
Second, I'm changing most of the terminology around. First off in my rules set I'm changing 'Safe Thrust' to 'Military Power'. The term 'Overthrus't makes more sense than 'Max Thrust' and In the rules when using conventional fighters it will be called afterburning, and on conventionals will eat up more fuel than on an aerospace.
I'm giving Conventional fighters manuever bonuses in the atmosphere over their heavier cousins, and allowing them higher bombloads than Aerospace fighters since being more aerodynamic they gain more lift from their designs, however I'm also giving Aerospace fighters the ability to spend thrust directly for manuevering, including limited VIFF capabilities since to manuever in space they would have some form of puffer ducts or manuevering thrusters available.
One of the most major changes comes with bombs. First off I'm making external stores not just be bombs, but also fuel (drop tanks or FAST packs), external gun pods, Air to Air Missiles and Surface to Air Missiles. The rules I have laid out right now could be adapted to the existing rules set, and make MUCH more sense, are more realistic, and make it so small fighters with high thrust ratios are not nuetered.
I go back to the point system of the original aerotech, although for now consider one point equal to one AT2 bomb.
The following is an excerpt taken straight from my rules set:
Aerospace Fighters
Lift Factor (LF) = SI or Military Power (whichever is higher)
Maximum Stores (MS) = (LF x 3) - (Tonnage / 10), rounded down.
Drag Factor (DF) = (MS x Tonnage) / Engine Rating,
Thrust Loss = Points of Stores Carried / DF, rounded up.
Conventional Fighters
Lift Factor (LF) = SI or Military Power (whichever is higher)
Maximum Stores (MS) = (LF x 3) - (Tonnage / 20), rounded down.
Drag Factor (DF) = Tonnage / Overthrust
Thrust Loss = Points of Stores Carried / DF, rounded up.
Thrust Loss is the most important number here, and is
applied to the planes Military Power rating, with it's Overthrust
rating re-calculated to match.
For example, Jake has a 50 ton 10/15 Aerospace fighter.
With an SI of 10, this plane could carry 25 points of external
stores { (10x3)-(50/10)=25 }, and would have a Drag Factor of
4 { (25x50/400)=3.125, rounded up to 4 }. That means that for
every four points of stores or fraction thereof carried, it
loses one thrust point, reducing its power to a 3/5 at
maximum load.
Another example would be a 100 ton 6/9 fighter. With it's 10
SI, this crafts maximum stores would be 20 { (10*3)-(100/10)
=20 }, while it's drag factor would be 5 { (20*100/400)=5 }.
This means that at maximum load the crafts thrust would be
reduced by four to a 2/3, effectively making it unable to
takeoff in an atmosphere without the use of overthrust.
You'll notice that the two aircraft in the example use the exact same engine, giving them the exact same actual thrust. Lighter plane less thrust is wasted on moving it and can be directed towards getting up to the speed to lift your stores, or directed towards the manuevering jets to increase lift as well.
As you can see, I'm basically writing an entire new gaming system. I'm tempted to make it completely unrelated to the battletech universe, but I really want a system for battletech that reflects the nuances and wide variety of air combat.
Kept my cool under lock and key,
and I never shed a tear,
another sign of my condidtion.
|
Karagin
12/06/01 03:07 PM
63.173.170.39
|
To bad Chris Hartford didn't think before he rushed to get AT2 out...and to bad he was forced to keep a lot of "ideas" from Battlespace.
Your system here seems to be more interesting and overall a better system then AT2.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
12/07/01 09:45 AM
63.173.170.97
|
I found then and if anyone is interested in them, please let me know. Posting them would be fine, but they have charts and such and after trying to line up everything I felt it would be easier to simple email those who are interested.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
NathanKell
12/07/01 10:50 AM
24.44.238.206
|
I am, most certainly.
Thanks.
-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 |
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 20 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 disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 1661
|
|
|
|
|
|
|