hope to move conversation out of general weapons

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
04/02/16 01:12 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The thought of people telling others how to play the game, and suggesting they should not say anything without the new rules made me realize this sounds very much like the power gaming issue.

I get the impression it is implied that if you do not have and use the latest rule set, you don't have the right to say anything about the current game.
This sounds alot like saying you can not use house rules, or you should not tell others they can not use over powered units. I find it ironic that someone saying you can not tell others how to play, suggests that you know nothing of the game not having the latest rules as poor at best.

Without asking how the rules are stated, how do you discuss them trying to bring up any issues that are not answered? I do not, and have not stated I know everything about the game.

Now with this, I will re ask the question here, I did in the other thread. Besides strafes and infantry rules, what else has really changed in the 30 plus years the game has been out?
ghostrider
04/02/16 04:49 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
No. Discussing anything means you should probably know SOMETHING about what you're discussing. And you know something about what is being discussed by owning those books or at least having read a friend's copy.

This statement implies a person is stupid, even though they have played the game for 28 years or so. The fact I do own a few hundred dollars of books on up to the clan invasion yet some how all of those rules stopped existing because a new rule book seems odd.
Please reread your statements. The implications of them makes it sound worse then what it is.
The implication that nothing is known because the core rules of the game that have been in effect since the 80's has completely change. Movement and fire is not longer the same, nor is the basic weapons the same.
The units use fairy dust to run and the weapons fire explosive flowers.

There is one more rule set that I know has changed and that is ams. No longer do you roll to see how many missiles die, and how much ammo you use doing it. I may not have the latest books, but suggesting I know nothing of the game just does not come across right.
Karagin
04/02/16 07:15 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hey we get it. I don't think you need to know the new rules and if the old ones work then stick to them. As I said before some can have all the books etc...doesn't mean they know or understand what they are talking about. And you offer a lot to the table, so ignore the naysayers and let's talk about Battletech.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/03/16 11:03 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now with this, I will re ask the question here, I did in the other thread. Besides strafes and infantry rules, what else has really changed in the 30 plus years the game has been out?



What's different from 2nd Edition Battletech? Almost Everything.

What's different from Total Warfare onwards?
Quads
Land-Air Mechs
Vehicles
Physical Attacks
Artillery
Heat Rules
Called Shots
Piloting Skill Rolls
Critical Hits
Fractional Accounting
Aerospace Fighters
Warship combat
Campaign rules
Battle Value
Innumerable number of new Engines, Gyros, Components, Weapons
New Units (Wige, Superheavies, Industrial Mechs, Quad vees, etcetera)

The list goes on and on and on . . .
Karagin
04/04/16 12:14 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The basics have not changed for a lot of things.

What's changed for vehicles? Oh wait we have TWO rule sets to build them now and the two sets of rules don't quite mesh together, so really all that did was add to the issues.

LAMs, no much has really changed other then you can use them again, then again I don't that stopped others from using them.

PSR changed? So did they change to where you can ignore them or did they change to make it hard to kill the pilot?

Called shots...yeah that one changed, but wait so did how Targ/Pulse works as well....

Fractional Accounting had changed before and it has been a level 3 for the longest time.

Battle Value, that is the next biggest joke of the game. But for some it works so meh...

And the weapons and such are not changes they are NEW items, thus not the same thing as changes.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 01:57 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Karagin writes:

The basics have not changed for a lot of things.

What's changed for vehicles? Oh wait we have TWO rule sets to build them now and the two sets of rules don't quite mesh together, so really all that did was add to the issues.



You're saying that the vehicle rules in Total Warfare and Master Rules are the same? Do you own Total Warfare?


Edited by Akalabeth (04/04/16 01:58 AM)
ghostrider
04/04/16 02:20 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quads were never something I liked, so I don't deal with them. Having new rules for them is not needed.
Lams are ok, but if I know right, were pulled out of the game. So another set of rules that I would ignore.
Vehicles have been nerfed even more, so yet another set that does me no good.
Physical attacks. Quads are involved so same thing. Ignored.
Honestly, most of what you listed is something that adds to the game, but not needed to play it. So the demand for me to buy the new rules does what for me? Spend money I don't have right now on a book of things that would be largely ignored?

Warship battles are something that should not be something players deal with, as they are supposed to be for the houses and clans, not an individual players personal ship. I do not think less of others that have come up with stories on why they have them, but frankly the money needed for them puts it beyond players that are not house leaders.
So put simply, it is another abstract thing as playing a merc means it is beyond something we can deal with. If we run into one, then we let the dropships and fighters try to deal with it. But in the end, we die if there isn't friendly warships around.

And battle values came from Battleforce. A boxed set I regret buying.
The fighter strafes would affect our game, but that is yet another rule that would be ignored.
The only thing that would be useful for the games I play would be the new weapons and such.

And I think you missed what Karagin said. He said there are 2 rules sets. Your statement suggest he claimed they are the same.

I was hoping the last comments were it. But I do thank you for showing me I am not really missing much, as most of the new changes would be ignored by the group.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 02:41 AM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't care if you like the changes. Your question was, have things changed? And the answer is YES.

You asked an honest question.
I gave an honest answer.
You gave a dishonest response by trying to change the nature of the discussion.

And yeah it's already established that you aren't intending to buy the new rules. So far your list of reasons is thus (paraphrasing):
1. "I have a 17-year old grudge with a defunct company"
2. "I don't have money"
3. "I wouldn't like the changes. I don't know what they are, but I am sure that I wouldn't like them".

Maybe in your next response you can give me another reason I can put on the list.


Total Warfare is very different from Master Rules. Infantry. Aerospace. Vehicles. All COMPLETELY different. Minor rules changes permeate the rest of the rule set. This is fact. No one who actually OWNS total warfare could say differently with any degree of honesty.
ghostrider
04/04/16 03:11 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Dishonest response?
Things have changed. Most of what has changed has no appeal to me, so unless you have some stock in the company, why does it bother you that I do not own it, or plan to buy it. I would assume the next book out will have all the same things in it and more.

I believe the suggestion I have never seen the new book is an assumption on your part. I looked thru it when it first came out, and from what I seen of it, it was the same basic thing with a few changes I didn't like.
So now it seems the idea of badgering me to buy something I didn't like years ago is the thing to do on the board. Because it bothers you?

And with a statement like completely different, makes it even worse. So fighters do not use fuel in their fusion engines to produce thrust, and have avionics to help them fly while using weapons to destroy the enemy?
Infantry is not used to secure population and fight against other units on the field? They don't fire rifles and such to destroy them while taking damage from enemy fire?

The nature of the discussion seems to be you have an issue with me because I don't own the newest set of rules. I stated that several times before, but for some reason, it is now an issue.

Honestly. What changed?
Or why is it an issue now?
Karagin
04/04/16 06:16 AM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:


You're saying that the vehicle rules in Total Warfare and Master Rules are the same? Do you own Total Warfare?



Have the basic rules changed? Do you not pick what you are using, both sides agree, you get the sheet ready, you roll to see who goes first, then you move your units, then comes combat etc...or did all of that change? Did the damage application change? If I hit the right arm with my Gauss rifle did it change to if I hit the top or bottom of the arm? Did the carry over change if I blow the limb off and there are points left over? Did the heat scale and how you figure heat change? Did the PSR change for 20plus points of damage in one turn?

SO if none of that changed, then the basics have not changed.

Let's see vehicles...there is still the same basic to hit chart, nothing changed there, vehicle still dies in three turns once it starts taking damage, and heaven help it if takes any side hits and the rolls are lower then 5 on said chart. Then the only big change I recall is the fire death rule so beyond that not much change, since the construction rules for combat vehicles are the same the gray area is the Support Vehicles and mixing tech and all the silliness of that. So really yeah they did not change enough to warrant you getting all bent out of shape.


And do you even Battletech bro?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 01:05 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, news flash. The vehicle chart changed. Vehicle critical hits changed.

It's pretty apparent that neither one of you is conducting this discussion in good faith. Changes are not qualitative, they're quantitative. Just because you feel something hasn't been changed enough doesn't mean it hasn't been changed.
Karagin
04/04/16 05:26 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think I mentioned the chart had changed some, but not enough to make vehicles any better and it fact they made such minor changes that it really didn't matter. And given that the basics of the game did NOT change from rule set to rule set means that the game is still the same. So just because you happen to not like how certain conversations go around here is no grounds for the comments made.

And a lot of the changes to the game have been not for quantitative they have been for quality, the need to have Core rule books is not about positive change it is about money, the game was working just find with the older rule set, the biggest, and still is the biggest, issue is the number times you have roll the dice and that slows the game down, as does digging through the rule books. Saw a meme on Facebook showed a library and said yeah the D&D rule is here somewhere in the books let me look. So that seems to be the path the game is taking. Many love STAR FLEET BATTLE, just about everyone who played or plays it hates the rules and the numerous fixes and additions and pages upon pages of rules that seem to come along like clock work, the idea that the game worked was lost somewhere and that is same here with Battletech.

Again if you don't like Ghostrider asking questions or such, then ignore the threads and talk about other things here on the boards.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:05 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles use to outright die from critical hits 50% of the time.
They died in fires or infernos if they didn't roll a 8+.

They have very much been improved.

Quote:
And given that the basics of the game did NOT change from rule set to rule set means that the game is still the same. So just because you happen to not like how certain conversations go around here is no grounds for the comments made.



When one expects a rational discourse and is instead given a mountain of irrational responses it is very much grounds for the comments made. Your responses are characterizing your feelings, they're not discussing the facts.

Vehicles used to have a critical hit chart which was 1d6 with 50% = death
Now they have directional criticals with a dozen different possible results.

And you say the basics haven't changed? What are the "basics"? Rolling dice? Yeah we still roll dice Karagin, the basics haven't changed at all.

ghostrider
04/04/16 06:07 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I saw a copy and thought it did not contain much I would use. So didn't buy it at the time.

Tell me. How many of the books and accessories did you pay full price for?
Not swap meets or yard sales.
I want to get into a list of questions, but most of them are more personal then it should be. But simply put. Not everyone will agree the new rule set is going to be good, or even helpful to them.

The fact you know I don't have the new rules would suggest some trolling is going on by suggesting I have them and not conducting the discussion in good faith.
The reasons I have not bought them have been made clear.

Does the conversations we have concern you tpb will actually act on them and remove your favorite tactics of the game?
That some how, they will remove the entire way you play the game?
To be honest, how much of the way the game is played is allowed in tournaments?
That should be the rules everyone has, but they decided to expand them. I don't like all of them, but agree with some. Optional rules is just that. Optional.
The critical charts for vehicles have changed. Armored components forced some of that. It was told when some designs had them on it.
It almost sounds like actually having to destroy vehicles like mechs will destroy the ability of others to wade thru a battalion of vehicles with a single mech. In my opinion. The game was never meant to do that, otherwise they would never have allowed vehicles to use the same things as the mechs, like the better armors or fusion engines. Heat would be the same for all, as well as not adding in things like suspension factor for vehicles.

And the addition of things like wiges. Does that make the sounds of putting vehicles on par with mechs a reality?

Now we can have a more civil discussion about issues if the idea that the game does not REQUIRE the latest rule set to be had and still play it. If there are things wrong with my statements, I am up to learning why it is wrong, if the rules have changed. I have put up my opinions of some rule changes, and have been a little harsh on a couple of people with their entries, and had to remind myself, along with a friendly push, that this is for everyone to use. Opinions are fine, but you can NOT force them on others. That is where I took exception to the accusation. I don't mind you not liking the fact I don't own them, and the suggestion of money grabs might deter others. I will say now as I did then, that was my opinion.
It seems to undercut the developers money flow.
But after spending 12 buck on the 20 year update and other things like that, I found them over priced and just not worth the money. Since then, most hobby stores around, don't seem to carry battle tech in the stores. So even looking it over to find out if it should be gotten isn't an option.
ghostrider
04/04/16 06:16 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And I seriously don't think purchasing something without looking at it, especially when you got burned in the past, and not just a few books here, but in real life, is a good thing.

So to try to end the argument of this conversation and make it something worth reading for the others, DROP the insinuations and demands and discuss the issues.
The suggestions I have been dishonest about the conversation goes both ways in this. Shifting the main discussion has not been as one sided as it has been made out. I tried to get the demands and insults to stop coming, but I failed in that aspect.

There are a few on the board that should be taken exception to my opinion of buying the new books every time a new one comes out. They have to remain on the side lines as they seem to be moderators. I know atleast one that consults with them.

Back to hoping this might turn out to be something more informative, and less hostile, but that isn't looking good.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 06:19 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Tell me ghostrider, how do Wiges put vehicles on par with mechs (or fail to)? What aspects of the WiGe do you find most appealing (or unappealing) in comparison to the other motive types?
ghostrider
04/04/16 06:43 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wiges basically make a land/air unit while lams get nerfed. It allows the unit to go over objects that would stop all other vehicles except vtols and aircraft. This puts them on the same level as a mech for maneuverability. As it does not use fuel like aircraft, it does give it an advantage of range.

It looks like it could be argued that it should be able to strafe other units as well. Low atmosphere could be argued as such.

I can actually see this type of unit being abused for combat drops and even combat loading into other craft. Low altitude pick up idea comes to mind. A shuttle with a front loading ramp could grab it in flight.

The old speed racer cartoon comes to mind with the jack idea coming to mind.
ghostrider
04/04/16 07:30 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The argument of the ice should be cheaper plays into the argument of keeping the vulnerabilities of vehicles at a bad point. Vehicles are supposed to be cheap, which is why they are supposed to be numerous.

I would think cheaper vehicles, would counter alot of the push to put them on par with mech, or at least not so screwed up. The armor idea would mean vehicles would probably carry more ammo, so running out in a fight is less likely. It would basically be like fighting non elemental infantry under the old rules. You would have lots of them running around, but a pair of lasers might be enough to take them out.
But it is so much easier to just add in the extra garbage and make logic holes open up.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 08:36 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Cheap in what sense?
Battle Value? C-Bills? Tonnage?
ghostrider
04/04/16 08:59 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles are supposed to be cheap in c-bills. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

With fusion engines, that should not be the case, but ICE's should not be that costly. The fact so many people love energy weapons seems to cause vehicles to be more robust. No running them out of ammo by making them take potshots. Now you have to do what you can to destroy them quickly, as they don't have ammo.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 09:13 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And how much cheaper SHOULD they be?

A Zhukov with 2 AC/10s and an SRM-6 at 75 tons costs 1.8 mil
A Hammerhands with 2 AC/10s, SRM-6, 2 ML at 75 tons costs 6.2 mil

An Urbanmech at 30 tons with an AC/10, SL costs 1.4 million
A 60 ton Po with an AC/10, 2 MG costs 1 million
A 50 ton Hetzer with AC/20 is 664K

Sturmfeur with 2 LRM-20s, 2 MGs, 85 tons is 2.4 mil
Archer with 2 LRM-20s, 4 ML, 70 tons is 6.3 mil

So if the average vehicle is 50% or less the cost of an equivalent battlemech, then what should it be?
ghostrider
04/04/16 09:53 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well the Hetzer is 40 tons, so before suggestion others wrong, make sure you are not making the same mistake. I have done this myself, and don't deny it.

Now. The comparisons are good for weapons package, but yet fall short in crucial areas.

First we start with production. Pumping out several hundred tanks a year verses a dozen mechs should bring and keep costs down.
Second. The nature of vehicles to die long before they lose all of their armor should tell you just how inferior they are. If luck is horrible when you play, then you strip the entire vehicle of that armor before it dies. That is not normally the case.

The vehicles can not go into heavy forest, as well as kick or punch other units Only a no weapons fired that round to charge(ram) another unit. With a few exceptions, they can not jump out of range/into cover, nor can the overheat firing off more heat then the sinks can handle. And most can not go into/onto water without being destroyed. They are limited to where they can go.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 09:55 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So HOW cheap do you believe they should be?
ghostrider
04/04/16 10:07 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is a good question. One I haven't sat down to come up with a good answer. So I will give you that one.

I really think the weight of the engine should be less, but a lower cost may prompt people to use ice over fusion.
Assembling the tanks should not be as much as mechs are, and I know they were not as bad. Even maintainance on them should not be as much for most of the systems. A laser is still a laser, but a transmission should be the same as a civilian vehicle only more robust.
Akalabeth
04/04/16 10:17 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Pretty sure that vehicles costs less to maintain in most if not all campaign systems already.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:21 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Most do not really deal with costs in a game. And with that, item availability is out the window as well.
But as the examples you gave will show. Given the change to use a sturmfuer or archer, which is someone going to use?
Also the archer as mls and such, so that adds to cost.

Now with someone suggestion armies will use the most efficient weapon systems.
Wouldn't that mean vehicles for defense so their mechs can be used in offensive measures?
And the best vehicles for the money/resources?
Why bother with any combat vehicles when you can use mechs for everything and win without wasting the resources on mechs?
That might be why the clans evolved as they did.


I've seen it said mechs were like midevil knights. Piloted by the elite of the military.
The suggestion that vehicles should be kept down, to make the such masters does not do the game justice. Knights were powerful, but not the ultimate fighters. They were weak to certain units, which is why pikemen became the standard weapon against them.

It may have been better for the developers to never have allowed vehicles to play such a role or just kept them to specific units, not even allowing outside construction of them. But they did. Not everyone wants to ride a mech. Making sure they don't have close to a fair chance seems to be much like claiming to be a master at a game that you don't play on anything but easy. Tactics is alot of what the game is about. Having vehicles that force you to hide in the heavy forest and not be able to jump to avoid being hit is very much part of the game. Most seem to avoid admitting that. A single mech against even a lance of vehicles about the same weight should be worried about losing. Otherwise, why bother having combat vehicles.

Bv is suggested for balancing combats. What sort of balance are you looking for? Mechs have more then a few advantages over vehicles, but it seems alot don't want to play against them. So then get the group to only fight against the sword of light, or the crucius lancers. Put real skill in the mech seat, instead of the rookies, and give them real mech, not the urbies.

I keep seeing things stating others don't like to play with vehicles, then don't. Just don't try to say they need to be kept down because a group doesn't like them.
As for the disadvantages being lessened? It is a start, but still not enough for my likes. Suggesting they are difficult to kill now, and don't need to be any harder. Without seeing how you deal with them, the main things that come up with is a lack of tactics, or the lack of taking them seriously.
Lance on lance, vehicles tended to lose badly when mechs were well played. With the newer stuff, it doesn't seem as bad, but I would still bet the mechs will win out as vehicles tend to be picked apart by crap. Lose movement with a single point of damage, yet a mech needs to lose the full leg armor before that can happen. And this is discounting the OPTIONAL floating crit rule.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 01:42 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Without having played with the newer rules I would suggest that it's impossible for you to determine if vehicles are more survivable or not. Just as I can't determine if WiGes are worthwhile if I've never played with them.

A lance of vehicles vs a lance of mechs should have much heavier vehicles for the mechs involved. 4 Centurions for example are equal battlevalue to 4 Manticore tanks, which have an extra 10 tons apiece with better firepower and range.
ghostrider
04/05/16 02:48 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Without play full destruction of the enemy, the fact that 1/2 of all crits ends with the crews death, has been changed, does give a person a chance to say the could survive more, or at least longer in battle.
But I can understand the sentiment behind the statement.

Now with the Centurion/Manticore battle. The mechs should win the majority of the time barring the really fluke rolls such as gyro/engine hits in standard combat. Terrain would really change the battle as well.
With the fact that even though they lessened the critical issue with tanks, you do not have to remove all the armor off a vehicle to score pretty regular crits.
I do like the fact they added more things that can go wrong, and allow for less issues like instant neutering of units. That does help. Still not quite there, but a good step.
I still dislike the autocrit rolls, as just hitting the unit cause to roll, but it is more acceptable.
Akalabeth
04/05/16 03:11 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why would the Manticore need fluke rolls when the Centurions side torsos have several tons of ammunition which will instantly destroy the mech if struck? I don't think you're really evaluating the two sides at all.
ghostrider
04/05/16 03:27 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was talking the hit location of 2. The thru armor criticals that can destroy a mech with 3 crits in the center torso. The chance to destroy the engine or gyro in the one hit screws up standard play.
I was trying to do a standard combat run thru.
Mechs don't take criticals until armor is gone from location, barring the 2 roll.
Vehicles roll for crit when hit and armor is still present.
If not for that, then vehicles would be on the same terms in combat as mechs are.
Movement is a different story, but for now, just focusing on the removal of armor.
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 8 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: 16518


Contact Admins Sarna.net