general information part 2

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | >> (show all)
ghostrider
04/15/21 06:17 PM
66.74.60.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Replacing the core with a prebuilt one, would not allow a ship to jump with the prebuilt core.
It would have to be built at the site of the stranded jumpship.
They don't say how large of a section of a jump core would prevent the jump. SO there is some leeway here.
Now to return back home, the broken core would have to be moved to a point where it would not interfer with the jumps, or torn down completely.
Which makes the question about the range of how close the cores could be without messing with others, as fleets would have a problem with each other when moving to another system. We know the range where the jump field pushes things away.

The Yardship made a good example of something that may well need to replace a jump core in the field, as damage to the SLDF's jumpships and warships would be more then possible. But in the time that those were not around, there would NOT be a place to build one in the field.
Rebuilding the entire jumpship in the field should not be necessary, as damage of that size would mean getting a whole new ship would be easier and cheaper.

As stated, it could very well be used to trap ships in system by having a partial core near the ship you wanted to keep in system. The size needed is the key here. Simply having one on a ship and position it near the jump vessel could well do it. Having it 'shot' onto a hull could be done as well.

The main things I wanted to find out was if the ship had to point towards the target, which seems to be answered by the fact that a ship ready to jump can be moving, which would suggest they would not be facing their destination.
Which suggests the forward motion thru the jump sequence would be wrong, as you could face away from your destination and still jump.
Wick
04/16/21 05:37 PM
173.247.25.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I was looking thru the wiki to see if a jumpship has to be pointed towards their target in order to jump, and seen nothing that says this has to be done. With that, it would suggest that the jumpship could jump 'sideways' to a destination. I was wondering if any of the books actually states is has to point towards the destination.


No it does not. I've read it somewhere, probably in Dropships & Jumpships, but the description given is that jumps can be made from any heading, and (perhaps more importantly) arrive at any heading.

Technically speaking, a jumpship is typically facing away from the star (bow out, stern in) to charge, and usually jumps from this same orientation. It's well known that a ship can jump to the same star, such as a zenith to nadir jump or vice versa. In this case, the jumpship would be facing absolutely away from the star just prior to the jumping and can arrive at the jump point facing entirely the opposite direction. Furthermore, each star's orbital plane is inclined differently; if they had to reorient themselves prior to and/or after each jump, they'd burn a lot more maneuvering fuel than they do (books, art, and games would also describe such a maneuver, and I know of no examples that do, but many that expressly do not, HBS Battletech for example.)

A jump isn't travel through real space, its a trip through hyperspace, so the rules of pointing yourself toward your destination simply do not apply.

As I recall the one catch is that a ship arrives with zero momentum. So while you can jump while burning and be travelling at several million kph when you start the jump, you arrive at zero kph and must reaccelerate up to a high velocity.

.

Agree with Karagin that jumpship repair is being overthought. 90% of the time a jump drive failure causes the ship to be utterly destroyed or stranded in deep space, far from any relief, with the effective loss of all hands (with rare examples of survivors finding a habitable planet nearby.) The remaining 10% of the time, they are usually so badly damaged, usually from battle or terrible maintenance, as to not be worth the repair effort. Remember that the jump core is by a wide margin the most expensive component of a jumpship - when it goes, the jumpship is basically scrap. The remaining jumpship husks are usually left as space junk, either where they are or moved to a junkyard orbit around the star, and its simply replaced on the roster with a newly built (or commandeered) ship. The yardships don't typically repair jump drive cores - they patch up armor and weapons incurred in battle, ie warships and dropships mostly.

Only in rare cases is it actually feasible to repair jump drive cores, and always always on warships - the WOB did it on some ancient warships abandoned during the Amaris Civil War and Succession Wars to build up a secret navy that no one else would know about. Costly, but no way to keep a secret that big buying brand new warships from the few shipyards capable of producing them. Presumably the houses may have done the same, on a more limited scale, during the later half of the First Succession War and into the Second, considering cost secondary to maintaining military superiority (or at least parity)
ghostrider
04/16/21 10:45 PM
66.74.60.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A little thought into the failure issue, and I don't think that the majority of the failures end in the death of the ships. Leaks in the jump core, as well as damage from combat would make up a little more then 10 percent of the issues with ships. Computer malfunctions, such as calculations or in the case of the 4th succession war where Steiner had sabotaged the Kuritan invasion fleet would be an example of damage that would require jump core parts, without being fatal.
Granted, there is no real way to even begin to say what is the truth to this, so take it with a grain of salt.
This is also running on the idea that you don't jump into uninhabited systems if you don't have to, just because of failure is that dangerous.
Also, the implications in most of the fluff suggest most jumpships are lost thru combat damage then actual misjumps. Again, this is implied, so might well be garbage for stats.

I can imagine issues with warships being even less life threatening, and more being repairable, as they tend to have more damage related issues, considering combat being a main threat to their cores. Not sure if an emp affects the core or components, but we do know nukes were used and produce emps.

The issue with built cores may well explain why only certain ship yards can build jumpships, as the cores would have to be built on site, and not shipped.
ghostrider
04/23/21 08:32 PM
66.74.60.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To avoid further thread jacking, the subject of the old equipment had some more things that might be discussed.
First thing that comes to mind is if those units that were made before the SL were stored in forgotten areas, that could well have been discovered by the relic hunters.
I could well see some warehouses being buried by war, and only found while people were searching for SL units. Maybe even the SL finding some when trying to build a new factory where they were at.

The idea of older units being called by things that are current came up with the idea that TPTB could very well have came up with the designs or configurations at an earlier time, though the model numbers should reflect this. Such as a Scorpion tank being based on such a find. They upgraded the unit to the 'current' version of the era. Maybe even having the prototype come from a much earlier unit, such as the evolution of say an Abrams or Tiger tank.
Copyright laws may well have caused them to avoid building such units for a while, resulting in large gaps between them being used and the remaking of them.
The Po tank is basically a heavier scorpion tank with an ac 10 verse the ac 5.
Even the generic SRM/LRM carriers would be evolved from an earlier version.
Karagin
04/23/21 10:49 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
More like the Battle-Axe, it was original in an issue of StarDate; it was a cheaper Warhammer that never quite took off, or so the fluff said, but fast forward to Jihad timeline, and about the ONLY thing they kept was the name and some of the fluff...

The Old is New idea is fine IF the old is being brought back as is or upgraded to current. A Colt .45cal pistol made with today's metallurgy skills and factory work will be completely different than one made in 1873. It's still close to the original, but it's NOT the original. The Project Phoenix concept SHOULD have been used for mechs like the Battle-Ax and Firebee etc...but no, they didn't even do that.

IMVHO they had a cool idea, as well as giving a nod to the older earlier BT stuff, and it floundered as more of but we can add this and this and what this came along.

None is going to throw craptastic older armor on a mech when they can get even 3025 era armor on the cheap. The Mad Max idea only works in the DEEP Periphery, not the Inner Sphere regardless of the fighting even in 3025 armor that could take the beating of mech and vehicle weapons was able to be made for everything so this BAC stuff is pretty pointless and offers nothing to the game beyond another paperwork accounting nightmare.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
04/24/21 08:37 AM
71.47.193.139

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Have the developers thought of making a hellfire missile type of bomb?



Yes, there are at least two different laser-guided hard point-mount weapons.

Quote:
Something that can be dropped from orbit and take out the sensor nets looking for ships?



No.

Quote:
Also related, just what is the range of mechs sensors?



Depends on the sensor. See Tactical Operations.

Thought about after posting, but would an advanced probe extend this range without finding the specials like it does at closer ranges?

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.
ghostrider
05/14/21 03:08 AM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To avoid thread jacking...

Why are chemical lasers useless? The lack of ammo?
Looked up the stats on the wiki, and they have the same range and damage for both the large and medium versions. The toxic materials being the main thing I can think of, but from a game point, they seem like a perfect fit for tanks.
The range could be an issue, but then that is any weapon with 9 or less when in the open.

What is being overlooked on my part?
Karagin
05/14/21 10:24 AM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Why would you use them when you have better options like a Light Gauss or actual lasers?

The extra retro-tech that we had forced on us as fans/players was not a step forward. Battletech had Lasers, it even had laser rifles that had power packs for infantry and non-mech use via the RPG side of the house. Did we really need that concept taken and put into mech weapons?

The chemical lasers are something that is for testing not weapons, even the lasers today are more of an energy system based not a chemical reaction. A perfect fit for tanks? Why because they have ammo and no heat? That falls back on the whole nerfed rules and thinking about vehicles going back to the start of this game and its rules. Mechs are king everything else is a second or third fiddle.

Also how many Clan vehicles use an IC Engine?

The whole thing still sounds like Caseless ammo but instead of AutoCannon, they slapped laser on the name. It's like someone taking a musket and tossing the ramrod and process of priming it, putting it all into a single round/bullet/shell, and putting a loading area that you drop the cartridge into and firing and you still get the smoke and kick and lack of accuracy that comes with a musket, but it cool because it looks like a modern Rifle so you skip the bad because of the cool.

Did we need a mech Taser? Are we playing Battletech or a new version of COD? A lot of the stuff got added because it sounded cool, so really all the new group of TPTB did was add their home tech wonder toys to the game. The same arguments that have been leveled on the Gauss Rifle and Ultra weapons as well all of the Clan stuff can be applied to tech we saw pop up with the whole Jihad plot.

Some of this stuff would have been right at home on Solaris 7 and should have been aimed for that setting and left there. Using Unbound as an example, it would have been a good way to introduce something, let folks play with it, give their complaints and feedback, and then a few years down the road, hey the Inner Sphere has these new weapons here are the five new ones. Instead, we got things dumped out like a dump truck dumping the manure in your front yard and then driving off before you could tell the driver where it need to go.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/14/21 01:17 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I didn't look into the cost of the chemical lasers, but if they are that much cheaper then normal ones, then they are good for combat vehicles, especially the ones that die a lot.

I do see that this is not a step forward, as the chemical lasers were made long before the SL was made. I do see it as a step into making the normal lasers common. There is a lot of crap tech that I have seen that has been thrown into the game, and agree, it was more flash then workable. I see them as a forgotten weapon that did have merits, but the world left it behind. Much like the musket.

Except for the limited ammo, how does the chemical lasers make vehicles weaker? Yes, the ammo limit DOES hurt a vehicle in the long run, but not having to need heatsinks to fire them, makes it a bit easier to use then a few other lasers.

I have been one to agree that vehicles got nerfed as mechs are not as able to keep up with vehicles carrying weapons. Their main claim in the old days was maneuverability, and the fact they could operate with a missing limb or two. But the lack of heat build up in vehicles makes them king when weapon packing non energy weapons. The srm carrier is a good one for that. 10 six packs on a mech isn't easy to do with the heat build up, then armor.

The Jihad, and even the clans shows that most developers and writers forget that if you come out with a super weapon, it will become part of the game if those using it do not 'win'. The bigger and badder weapons destroy story lines, as it will eventually show up again and again. Then to say you can't use them really shows how stupid this cycle becomes.

I can agree that some ideas are dump fires dropped in your front lawn, but there are a few in that mix that is usable. I don't see the chemical lasers replacing normal ones, but as a back up or low tech weapon, it has a niche. I would think these are the very weapons the 'rebels' use on mechs that should have had ICE running them. The farmers revolt concepts that use workmechs for their primary punch.
Now I can see a nerf on this as the chemicals used in the weapons is so toxic, as they would be banned even more then normal lasers in civillian hands.
Karagin
05/14/21 03:06 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your statement on cost sounds just like a politician.

Weaker in that you still lose range, and the fact that you have the same ammo weakness that comes along with any weapon that needs ammo. Then the fact that its use is limited in scope, we don't see it on a lot of vehicles in the game, and really it looks to be a stop-gap weapon used to keep real lasers for the Omni-mechs for the Horses.

BS on the lack of heat build-up makes vehicles king. I have tossed the rules on vehicles and heat, run many battles testing out that same argument, and found that the To Hit Location Table is the main issue with vehicles. Count the spots, then look at all the secondary effects, and you find that vehicles can use DHS without screwing up the Mechs being KING because they lose out when you roll to apply damage and their weak internal structure.

I can still beat a vehicle that is using DHS with canon mechs mainly because the mech can take damage and thus last longer than the vehicles. It can take movement hits and still stay in the fight. It can take an ammo hit and if it has CASE it can still stay in the fight if it's not carrying an XL engine.

Vehicles die in Battletech far faster than any other unit that unarmored infantry. So allowing them to have access to and use DHS won't hurt the game.

How low tech do you want to go? Do we really need low-tech weapons as the mainstay in the normal game? They are one-off items, you MIGHT find in use on a world that has fallen off the trade routes or some backwater deep OUTER Periphery world but not in use by the Inner Sphere powers.

It's like our musket example, it's a functional weapon and a hit will still kill someone event today, but are you going to army your infantry with it? No, because there are better weapons available and even a rebel group will drop the older weapons for newer ones the first chance they get.

The story line was nerfed when they ran with the Jihad as a reset to shoehorn in the Dark Age Clicky Verse story.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
05/14/21 04:20 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Also, another area vehicles are nerfed in is engines. Sure we have fuel cells and they can use XL engines, but really we never did get a lighter IC engine. No turbine engines for vehicles and given how the fusion engines in the vehicles are, according to the fluff over the years, the same as the ones found in mechs, the idea that DHS can't be used is something that needs to be dropped.

If I buy a 300 rated fusion engine and it comes with DHS then it should work in a vehicle. An excellent example, I can put a V12 engine from an airplane into a car and it will work just fine, same speeds can be reached if I am crazy enough and have the open space to try. Look at the NASCAR vehicles, original they were supposed to be STOCK hence the S in the name, but even with the updates to the engines, which things do transfer over to normal cars over time, you can easily drive the cars on the highways, laws prevent it, but the vehicle will still run fine.

Vehicles also take another hit in how cargo carrying is rated, if I want 2 tons of cargo space I have to give up 2 tons of build weight, sorry NOT how that works, but in Battletech it is.

So really the vehicles could have all the bells and whistles that the Mechs have and they still won't challenge the mechs as king of the battlefield in any area but price, but they have been cheaper than mechs since day one.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/14/21 06:01 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Not sure where you lose range, as the wiki states the ML version has the same range as the normal ML version. Same damage, with actually less heat. Costs sounding like a politician may be accurate, but when you don't have the funds of a large state like the Lyrans, you do what you can with what you have. If running a merc unit, costs are very important. Which in the end would probably result in ignoring the Chemical lasers in favor of the normal ones if you are successful.

I agree that the hit locations on a vehicle cause it to really be nerfed. Used to be facing/turret(if any) for a vehicle. So ALL fire hits that location. There isn't a spread around like the 8 locations on a mech. With the newer rules, there is the adjacent sides being a target now. In the end, any entire loss of internals removes the unit. Head and center torso are the only ones in a mech without IS XL engines that does this.
I agree whole heartedly about DHS and even Endosteel for vehicles. The DHS engines are a prime example of why they should work. It is the same one that can be pulled/put into a mech and work without issues.
And the reason why you don't fight as many vehicles is that fact people want mech on mech. They don't want mech on vehicle. So that is more player issue then game. The game DOES help cause this issue as well, since scenarios lean hard on mech on mech.

As for other points, I agree with the BS of ICE and other things. The real world shows you that you don't require a 50+ ton engine to move a 100 ton unit. Even with the slower units today, they are rated in MPH, not KPH. So they are faster then the games, while being lighter. And with the BS of the lighter materials being able to absorb the landing of a 100 ton unit that was jumping, yet can't handle the combustion of an ICE shows the flaws in the game.

The Chemical laser seems like a good choice for those that don't have the ability to make normal lasers for vehicles. That doesn't mean evey unit should mount them.

One small thing about weight carrying. It is not completely true about giving up the weight if you are not going to make it permanent. The game counters it's own rules by allowing units to carry more weight, but take a movement penalty. So their own rules violate their own rules. For vehicles, they can tow things. Would figure mechs could as well, if they hook up the cargo nets right. I don't see any canon units giving up weight in order to tow other things.
Karagin
05/14/21 08:25 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So you have a choice, use an AutoCannon (multiple variants of) with better range, same ammo dependency, or use the Chemical Laser on a vehicle that is expected to see combat...this is after, say you put a couple of normal (real) lasers on the vehicle.

Oh, your vehicle has an IC engine, okay, so really, you just limited it to being usable on planets with an atmosphere that has oxygen in it. Oh, you went fuel cell, cool, you get heat sinks with that, oh it's the power amp issue, so how much weight are you really losing by having a power amp since you ONLY need one, unless they nerfed that up, so do you really gain anything with the chemical lasers?

Now the range thing, yes, they have the same range, so why use the normal lasers at all, beyond their no ammo? At this point, these Chemical Lasers should be on ALL mechs since it takes the big issue for mechs out of the picture as well.

What I driving at is they don't strike me as really giving anything to the vehicles. They lose the advantages of the normal lasers, which makes certain vehicles pretty pointless or reduces their worth to zero as far as the game goes. Cost is only an issue for those who are playing a campaign or RPG setting, the average player doesn't worry about the cost. Need to check the BV of these, but that too is a system not everyone uses either. One thing I have noticed is you and a couple of others always bring up the price tag of the weapons and really that was never much of an issue in the 3025 setting again beyond trying to play Mechwarrior RPG and even that was rare for the majority of players.

Now if we are talking about the Houses trying to remake things, then yes cost matters, but as we have seen, if TPTB wants a House or certain unit to have something they will get it regardless of the cost and the handwaving to explain it will happen.

In all fairness the vehicles need a revamp, they don't need a silly second armor rating class like BAC, what is needed is allowing them to use EDS and DHS, better IC engines, and a revised-to-hit table that doesn't kill them in a single turn. None of which will hurt the game overall or remove the Mechs from their popular place.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/14/21 08:43 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
TPTB's perfect world would be nothing but mechs and armored infantry except for militia, or so it would seem.
I would love to have nothing but fusion, XL being the better part of that, sealed vehicles for no real cost. Basically an Alacorn or a Clan ultra 20 set on a Demolisher that can run on any world. Having some LAMS to allow planetary invasions as well as retreats that don't require losing everything if a unit gets disabled. But this is never going to happen as me and dice rolling have a love/hate relationship.

Chemical lasers is a minor step that can, and I repeat can, help bridge the gap between ICE using lasers and not. I can imagine spamming regiments of jeeps with them in order to overwhelm even the Dire Wolf company coming up over the ridge. So throw away units would be what the Chemical lasers would be useful on.
Now Fire Support? Not even a chance.
Putting them on normal Battle Mechs? No.
Worker Mechs with ICEs? Better then mgs.

TPTB will destroy their own game in order to come up with something to start a new war. The boogie man needs new weapons, but yet no one can use them afterwards. Much like the weapons on Xcom. It is a poor way to bring a challenge, but when you have only so many splinter groups that you can use, it becomes the main way to do so.
Yes, research will bring in new weapons, but the amount and how far advanced they are is the issue. Might was well introduce the PPC that can destroy a full city from orbit in the next wave.

Now for the hauling things issue, I remembered about the recovery vehicle. The one that weighs 70 tons but can haul a 100 ton mech. So yeah. The rules don't really stick when they do things like this.
Karagin
05/14/21 10:12 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
IC engine ran vehicles can use lasers, you only NEED one power amp, it's not one per laser. In reality, would be similar to APU (Additional Power Unit) that truckers use. The zero heat thing makes no sense given that they then say vehicles aren't as tightly constructed as mechs, so yes you are right they don't make sense with their own system.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/14/21 10:31 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As most know, but I will state it so anyone new will understand this, it isn't the amps that is the issue with energy weapons on vehicles. It is the heat sinks required to use them.
That weight is the killer of energy weapon use.

So for the one with the 8 MLs, would need 40 sinks with an ICE. The Chemical lasers removes the need for that weight. The ammo changes the efficiency of weight to damage, as the ammo needs to be figured in.

The statement of the vehicles not being as tightly constructed makes another question come up. Would a vehicle that is sealed against the environment cause it to heat up like a mech would with ballistic and missile weapons? I would think sealing it up would be to keep the fluids, like water, out of the working parts, like the mechs armor is supposed to do.
At least that is what I figured the reason for the missile/ballistics heating up the mech does. No way to just vent that into the air around it. I could be wrong on this assumption.

I would think the ICE would need oxygen tanks to keep the engine running on top of the crews air needs. As much fuel the tanks use, it sounds underweight for the sealant. Picky, but still comes into question.
The sealant is used for void worlds as well, so a snorkel isn't going to cut it all the time.
Karagin
05/14/21 11:33 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Lots of issues with the vehicles and yes the heat sinks are the big issue, but these retro-tech toys are really no better than AutoCannons, and you get roughly the same overall performance from those. All you get with these things is the dice game, you get to play the many things firing so that means I munchkin my way to a win.

8 Med ChLs all need 8s to hit, so do you roll each on their own? One big roll an all or nothing thing? Do you use the missile tables to figure out damage to speed things up akin the missiles?

No different than the Ontos from back in the 3025/3026 TRO, 8 MLs same idea, unload at close range, have the sinks, have the armor, don't have the speed, but the vehicle is not meant for speed. The original item in question takes the hovercraft approach and where is that any different than taking a 20 or 25-ton mech and doing all Clan tech Med Pulse Lasers, max sinks, max armor, etc...and running around hit the rear of everything?

My group has a TON of home tech weapons, some are okay, some aren't really meant for use beyond one-off games, and some things we just tried out based on something we read about in a technical book or some book on upcoming weapons. The "Rifles" that came out that were the forerunners of the AutoCannons according to the powers that be, are no different. And using their logic, it would be like last year you were facing enemy forces with M4 Carbines and body armor, and today they have STG44s, no body armor, and throwing grenades vs using a grenade launcher attached to their weapons and you find out later the why is because someone found out they could be made cheaper or a large stockpile was found.

I could buy into the chemical lasers IF they were set up as before the Age of War weapons that were slowly phased out for real lasers. But that's not how they did this.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
05/14/21 11:36 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The heat thing with the chemical lasers isn't why they came about:

Quote:
In 3059, the Clan Hell's Horses Scientist and Technician Castes received a mandate from their Khan: Find a way to make lasers that didn't need power amplifiers. With the preponderance of combat vehicles in their Touman, the Hell's Horses Khans wanted to devote more vehicle tonnage to weapons and armor instead of the power amplifiers required by units lacking fusion engines.



So which is it? If these were suppose to be about not needing the power amps then why monkey with their heat?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/15/21 04:08 AM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Timing and retconning are horrible in the game. Ideas came out long after they should have, and are shoved down our throats suggesting they were there all the time.
The original complaint about SL tech never being in caches that people could find in the 3025 era starts it for the original release.
The evolution of weapons has made some very dangerous ones which make the originals look like toys. There isn't an argument there. That does not mean the originals are completely worthless. A few modifications can make them dangerous without the need for high tech.
Will they compete with the high end ones? Probably not.
Can they be effective with a few mods? Possible.

Now as we know, TPTB have a tendency to make horrible decisions in their writing. The concept of the Horses complaining about the power amps is stupid. The heat sinks is far more of an issue with requiring weight. But someone didn't think before writing that.

Each weapon should require it's own roll, meaning 8 lasers use 8 different rolls. As stated in the first response, I mentioned the Ontos as the unit in question looked like a hover version with a solution to the heat. Something that shows the developers really didn't look thru everything before releasing more ideas. Imagine if they had a faster unit with Small Chemical lasers to get in close. 16 shots with 3 points of damage per hit. It would be a crit looking unit, much like having all mgs. But this could be used on mechs as well, with DHS covering the heat. And the mech could still do physicals if done right and in range.
I would think they will retcon the heat back in, as this will cause issues as it takes away part of the supposed superiority of mechs out, as this will help vehicles make a decent showing.
Karagin
05/15/21 01:12 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I hope they retcon them OUT of the game along without 90% of the crap we got from 2004 forward. Then again I can wish a new Lamboighi and I know both will not happen, but I have a better chance of getting the car in the long run.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Wick
05/17/21 05:31 PM
173.247.25.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I could buy into the chemical lasers IF they were set up as before the Age of War weapons that were slowly phased out for real lasers. But that's not how they did this.



Agree with this in general, but would make an exception for a few deep periphery nations, the Castillians for example. Even by 3060s/3070s they were using Primitive tech mechs and vehicles and apparently none of them mounted normal lasers - only missiles and ballistic weapons. Their experience with fusion technology is too recent for them to have reached that state of development, but they'd have made a great choice to come up with chemical-based lasers as a low-tech alternative.

Clan Hell's Horses introducing it though? That was indeed stupid, as many things were during that timeframe of Battletech development. Few Clan combat vehicles had ICEs anyway so it defeats the purpose the Khans were trying to make. The Huey has one though its artillery role eliminates a practical need to develop a new weapon class to mount a few more weapons. Zorya as well but all indications are that it had long been assigned to second-line formations in the Horses by 3059 (maybe a few still in front-line amongst the Cloud Cobras and Blood Spirits.) So the premise that chemical lasers were needed to free up space in their tanks doesn't jive because they are practically entirely fusion-powered.
ghostrider
05/18/21 07:49 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Vehicles seem to have been meant to only use ballistic and Missile weapons, since they need sinks for energy weapons.
It appears that TPTB did not want vehicles to do as mechs, and stand at a distance taking pot shots. They also seemed to have wanted tanks as target practice, not actual viable defense units.
How many of their fanboys wants to face a Demolish, Schrek, or even an SRM/LRM carrier that doesn't die on the first hit?
This concept may well be part of the reason why they don't want clan tech in the IS. Half weight launchers means the missile carriers can have some decent armor.
Who wants to go up against a Rifleman IIC that is a tracked vehicle? Even an Alacorn with clantech?
That would require skill to maneuver into a good spot and fire on it. Otherwise, a poor choice will probably mean death to the mech.

Instead, they wanted the crap WOB tech out there, and then made it all go boom so the houses, especially vehicle makers, could not use that tech and make them have to rethink mechs as a whole.
Rewriting them so they have bigger advantages over tanks is something they don't want to do. But this may lead back to the lack of real playtesting before releasing the 'newer' stuff. Maybe hiring or consulting the min/max people to see where things can be abused.

Having DHS and Endosteel, along with the lighter ICE, would make people soil their draws when facing vehicles, instead of laughing. Vehicles should have better skilled crews then mechs, as they are easier to train in. Yet this isn't shown.
The semi fix of crits may have scared them too much, as a single mg isn't as likely to kill the unit. They might as well add a few tons of weight for each component that goes onto a tank to make sure they aren't a challenge to mechs.


Edited by ghostrider (05/18/21 07:50 PM)
Karagin
05/19/21 12:31 AM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ghostrider you are talking as if giving them DHS and Endo will fix all their issues, it won't. Run a solo game, take your wonder versions of the vehicles you named give them only DHS, keep EVERYTHING else the same. No changes to their damage hit tables. The run four of them against a Medium to Heavy Lance or a mix of the two, and you will still watch the vehicles die faster than the mechs do.

Given the vehicles, the two things they need aren't going to make them better than mechs. The big why is because the terrain still limits them. Where mechs can go through all-terrain the vehicles are hampered by it.

No mech is going to fear vehicles with DHS and ENDO or a better IC engine, UNLESS the damage hit table is adjusted and the turret gets four facings areas or the extra damage done when certain areas are hit is adjusted to take into account the special armors and such.

Seriously you sound just like those of TPTB who keep saying NO to giving vehicles what they should already have.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/19/21 03:17 AM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was suggesting TPTB didn't seem to want vehicles to actually challenge mech pilots. DHS and Endosteel won't make them super units, but would give them more ability to actually do the job they are meant to do. They are guard units when mechs aren't available. And yet, they look like they are supposed to run out of ammo and fail, while mechs can do hit and runs with energy weapons and not worry about not being able to fire if a heat sink is hit.

If you recall, I was one of those that said that vehicles SHOULD be able to use that stuff, with the examples of the DHS engines functions magically failing if installed in a vehicle. The entire concept of Endosteel was used for an example of a stronger material that could very well be used to make lighter ICEs. But that seems to scares TPTB.
Since they started limiting what can fit inside a vehicle, there really isn't much excuse for not allowing them to use more advanced equipment, other then not wanting the excuse of limiting tech would show up as a major blunder.
As stated, all damage to a vehicle used to be focused on the facing towards the enemy and the turret if it had one. So it was easier to kill tanks faster, as all damage was to 1(2) possible locations. Internal gone and so is the unit. 10 internals max makes it that much easier. Now the two adjacent sides can possibly be hit. I can agree with that. But in the end, a unit with no turret carrying the same armor as an Atlas, dies faster as all damage hits up to 5 locations now, with any depletion of internals meaning death. This is not counting crits, as that was discussed in earlier posts.

I was pointing out the clan tech makes vehicles a lot more tougher with missiles at least. DHS allows vehicles to mount energy weapons, giving them the ability, without crits, to stay on the field a little longer. No ammo to run out or explode.
And the fact that mechs can go thru terrain vehicles can't is fine. It is what makes mechs superior mobility.
An Ontos tank with DHS can mount even more lasers, or even upgrade to large lasers.
Armored movement components for vehicles is more threatening then DHS. No more instant destruction of movement.
The previous post was full of sarcasm for the fanboys crying about a real challenge from vehicles. It was not saying that vehicles should not be a challenge, possibly a large enough threat to have mechs retreat or be destroyed. The idea that only a mech can beat a mech seems prevalent in a lot of cases. I really think most of them don't want to have to use tactics in order to take out tanks like you have to with mechs.
Wick
05/19/21 06:27 PM
173.247.25.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Vehicles should have better skilled crews then mechs, as they are easier to train in. Yet this isn't shown.


I disagree. Vehicles are worked by a steering wheel, levers and buttons. Mechs are controlled in part by the neurohelmet. This enables mechs to react faster (piloting skill) and aim better (gunnery skill) than tanks. Sure there is training involved, and to properly train a mechwarrior takes longer than to train a vehicle crew, but at the end of the day a properly trained mechwarrior should have greater skill levels than a properly trained vehicle crew thanks to the mental link to their machine. Ditto for aerospace fighters and protomechs.

The argument really shouldn't be about what kind of equipment the tanks can or can't mount, but that they should be capped at a poor skill level. Even the best tank crew shouldn't have a skill level better than a Regular mechwarrior, and certainly not a Veteran level mechwarrior. My home group made the assumption that the average tank crew had 6/6 skills based on this fact, because it wasn't defined in either Citytech or Battletech Compendium (the effective rules at the time.) Tanks and troopers would miss frequently and be easy pickings for mechs, but made up for it by being cheap and numerous - exactly as things should be. But then FASA fumbled things in 2000 with Master Rules, giving them the same 5 piloting, 4 gunnery as mechwarriors, which makes tanks truly comparable to mechs. Sure mechs are still better one on one, but if the skill points are equal, c-bill for c-bill the tanks are a far better investment. It doesn't matter what kinds of equipment you keep from them, be it endo steel, double heat sinks, or even XL engines (as were originally forbidden on tanks), players and designers will find a way around it though particular weapon choices. Even LRM and SRM carriers with poor armor are very dangerous when their gunnery skills are low enough to be accurate with their shots - the only way to turn them back into the piles of crap they were intended to be is to hobble them with terrible gunnery skills (if not driving as well). FASA should have never made tank crews the equal of mechwarriors. It didn't make sense fictionally, and made even less sense balance-wise when the rule was defined.


Edited by Wick (05/19/21 07:07 PM)
ghostrider
05/19/21 09:20 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The argument for tank crews to be capped at a certain level is mainly done by tank crews being killed so easily in the older days. Now that they aren't killed 1/2 of the time they get a crit on them, the skills should be even better.
The crews are easier to train, and keep training then a mech pilot is. But then this is going back to when they said that even keeping a mech upright wasn't easy.
The single pilot has to try and control everything on the mech. That is especially true with balance, as every thing you do creates a constant need for control. Moving the arms means shifting the stance to avoid over extending the mech. Poor footing and such doesn't help. The neural helmet only does so much. I will agree that the better skilled pilots are less likely to be affected by things like a water slick surface, but that is reflected in their skills. 6/6 skills for a tank crew being average might only be close to accurate when you consider all the untrained militia and new crews being trained.
The cooperation in the crew might seem to be an issue, if you look at it like every member has the attitude that they are the only ones that can run a tank. When they work as they should, a well oiled machine, they are far better at keeping things working right.
And this removes the fact that not all tanks have more then one crew member. The Savanah Master being a well known single crew tank. Most everyone gets some training in ground vehicles, as most will learn to at least drive a normal vehicle. That is not saying that driving the farm tractor is anything like driving a hover tank, but you start off with more skills then trying to walk a biped mech. Quads would be a bit easier as you have four feet, not two.
Most tanks have more crew, but not all are part of driving/gunner. Coms, loaders, and a few others don't do anything but relay information or do what mechs have autoloaders for. Driving and gunnery are the only things that really matter in combat. The mech warrior has a lot to deal with besides point/shoot and walk.

As stated, the main reason why a mech warrior would outshine a tank crew is because they should survive longer to gain the more skills. So I do agree that there should be less tank crews in the better skill ranges, I don't think that they are worse off then a mech warrior with the same skill level.
Also, a tank crew should actually be better at dealing with terrain then a mech, as the driver is watching where they are going, and not focusing on getting the targeting crosshairs on a unit to the left or right. Even straight ahead, a mech doesn't always see what they are stepping on.
Karagin
05/19/21 10:35 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wick your idea on tank crews is insane. I am sorry but they have a guy whose main job is gunnery, then a driver who is going to be damn good at his job, then you have the commander who makes sure the two can get their butts to the fight and keep them focused, so yes they should be as good as the MechWarrior they fight.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
05/20/21 11:09 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Have you ever tried to snap fire a weapon? It isn't as easy as you might see in the movies. This is the sort of thing that mech pilots tend to do, as each round is supposed to be 10 seconds. This is also why I think the laser needing to focus is a bit off. Now if you only had say a single weapon, like a Stinger making a shot without the MGs, then it is a bit easier. But this is also supposed to be going on with things like jumping and the enemy doing what they can to keep from being hit. Just a simple tic from say fatigue, could very well ruin shots with that arm.
The Neural helmet only helps keep balance. It is not the end all for moving the limbs where they need to be, much less making a torso twist just the right amount to fire the weapons. So for one person, it is a lot to concentrate on while trying to get hits. Not that it is impossible, and for some, it isn't even hard.

Suggesting that more then one person being involved in running a war machine means inefficiency isn't quite right. If there is a new person or even attitudes between the crew members, then it is right on the money. But those crews will probably die quickly, and never really get their skills up to 5 gun, much less 4.
I guess an example of good team work is some of the tank crews in say the Abrahms. Firing and hitting targets while both are moving full out, and firing 2 shots in under 10 seconds. Now firing only one gun can be an argument there, as multiple weapons would require more skill, just like firing torso mounted LRMs with lasers in the arms.

In the end, tank crews should start off with better skills, as they train far more then mech pilots do, because of finances to begin with. Finding a 2/2 crew for a tank should be extremely rarer then a 4/4 mech. That doesn't mean the vehicle crews are bad at their jobs.
Wick
05/22/21 05:29 PM
173.247.25.195

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So you guys don't think the neurohelmet does what the canon says it does? Where do you see it said that it doesn't help aiming? If it allows fine motor control to dodge incoming shots and pick up items with hand actuators, then it surely helps raise a weapon arm or orient torso facing toward a target. For an experienced mechwarrior, this will be a reflex action translated into mech movement, and faster than the best driver and gunner can move and aim with mechanical controls. I don't at all buy the argument that gunner and driver who are damn good at their jobs are better than a mechwarrior's brain that is good at his. Why have neurohelmet at all if its worse than good training and/or good teamwork using mechanical controls? I don't see any mechs running around with a crew of three or four pulling switches and levers and pressing buttons to do all the work. If well trained crews were better than a neurohelmet, surely someone in 700 years would have discovered it and built mechs around such a concept. If you're going to call me insane for supporting neurohelmets, I've got to call you guys insane for implying that idea would be better.

Furthermore, when the Mackie and other first generation mechs were introduced, they completely dominated all the tanks, despite hundreds of years of tank development and training, and a mere couple of years of mech development and training. Totally green mechwarriors were destroying companies of veteran-crewed tanks with ease. Something (the neurohelmet) gives mechs such a significant edge in battle that the best tanks and tank crews just aren't in the same league. Since the construction rules did not critically hamper tanks, it was widely assumed by players 9at least the ones I knew) that it must be through skill ratings. Since it was a 0-6 scale and only mechwarriors were defined at 5/4, the assumption was that tanks and infantry were 6/6 by default. I'm not suggesting a 6/6 tank crew is bad (an equivalent 8/8 crew would be bad) - its just that if mechwarriors are generally 5/4, then common sense dictated that the tankers had to take a few steps back to mirror the performance described in canon. FASA simply blew it by not taking this into account when declaring both mechwarriors and tankers started with the same skill ratings in Master Rules. (It messed up game balance so much that unit cost tourneys suddenly shifted to be vehicle heavy, taking the focus off of mechs. With Dark Age doing the same, it ruined the game for a lot of us old-timers. We couldn't be competitive without also going tank heavy. They even had to introduce the BV concept - and revise it later - to move people off of unit cost tourneys to get mechs back into the fold with modern BV-based tourneys.)

But, if you want to have a 5/4 tank crew fresh out of training, fine. If you want to explain that its easier to train them and that they can somehow work as well as a singular brain, I'll concede the point that a green or regular mechwarrior and tank crew can start their career at roughly the same 5/4 point. But the mechwarrior has a trump card to prove themselves better and that's through the crucible of experience. In game terms, skill levels are only improved through battlefield experience, not through training. Surviving a battle scenario earns an experience point that can be used to buy an upgrade to piloting/driving (4 points) or gunnery skill (8 points.) As mechs are the foremost military might, they are involved in more battle scenarios than tanks and will earn experience points faster. Unless you go all Dark Age silliness and send your vehicles into battle first, then mechwarriors will advance quicker than tank crews. I know this isn't analogous to real-world examples, and downplays the value of simulators and wargames, but that's the way the rules work. If the rules give them 5/4 skills to start, then you have to concede that the rules involving skill improvement implies that the mechwarrior will probably advance faster. And given the native survivability of mechs compared to tanks, will often continue to grow rather than dying in battle. The end result is that a veteran mechwarrior should be considerably better than veteran tank crews, and elite mechwarriors should have almost no equal amongst tankers. A 2/2 tank crew should be exceptionally rare. If starting at 5/4 that's 28 scenarios survived - while not at all easy for mechwarrriors to reach that many, very few tank crews would be so lucky.
ghostrider
05/22/21 09:40 PM
45.51.181.83

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your description of the Neurohelmet only suggests that the tank crews are even more skilled then the mech pilot. They don't have the connection in order to move the weapons into position as easily.
But this is sort of moot. A skill of 5 is a skill of 5. Weither you are 12 meters off the ground, or on you belly like infantry sneaking up on a unit, it is still the same thing.
This question: Why have neurohelmet at all if its worse than good training and/or good teamwork using mechanical controls? suggests forgetting the main reason why mechs have them. They help keep the balance of the unit. No matter what else they do, they help keep the mech upright as the primary reason they exist.

I do admit the updated information in the wiki does support the helm being useful for more then just balance, but it also says physical actions needed to do things in conjunction with it.
Reading a bit more after the neurohelmet question, you might need to reread how the mechs work. They do require levels and such to move the unit as well as fire. Even the fiction says things like torso twisting means turning the control sticks and such. The helm is not a control all of the mech. Also, this seems to forget they do have dual cockpits that allow two people to work a mech, and it is supposed to be better when they do. I do question if the dual cockpit is better, as someone controlling the arms may well throw off the balance of the unit, or the pilot needing to use them to help balance, causing the gunner to miss.

There is a few issues with the next paragraph. Saying the helm was what gives the mech the advantage is incorrect. It helps with mobility, which is a major advantage over tanks. And when the game first came out, vehicles died very quickly due to TPTB wanting to make the mech king. 1/2 of all confirmed crits destroyed the tank. For a mech to die in one hit, even an mg, it would need a 2 on the hit locations, then a 12(3 crits/limb blown off) hitting all engine, or the gyro. Also, mechs do have the ability to physically attack vehicles when in range. This is also ignoring the issues with all hits destroying one or two locations as well as very limited internals which when destroyed, takes out the unit unless it is the turret. There is no continuing when you lose a part of it like a mech.

The 5/4 mechwarrior isn't straight out of training. It is the skills that TPTB decided would be best to allow a play to actually do some killing rather then missing so much and dying. There is no fun in constantly dying as you couldn't hit the barn sitting next to you with a mech with 20 mgs. Tanks were originally meant to die to mechs, so they weren't damaged so badly when they did fight other mechs. The hero of the stories is the mech pilot. It doesn't help having the hero on death's door just after stepping out of their own home.
Another misconception, but very understandable. Tanks are the main forces that are dealing with far more then mechs. Infantry being even more commonly used. Mechs are the 'elite' of the game, and gain all the credit for everything. The game is slanted that way. The main garrisons and even assault units are tanks and infantry. Mechs are used for the do or die parts of any assault/defense. The one exception to this is hot drops, as the original game did not allow even infantry to do so. Infantry HALO gear came out much later.

Now the last part I said and agree with. A 2/2 tank unit is very rare. They tend to die from crits before getting there. Mech warriors live far longer then average tank crews, and that isn't as much about skills as it is about the units themselves.
I have yet to hear of any unit putting mechs out to slow down and run an enemy unit out of ammo. Tanks are the go to for that, as infantry don't have the range or punch to do so. Most forget about this, and think only mechs are the main forces for anything.
Tanks are limited by a lot of things, such as canyons. A mech can jump or climb to pass one, but a tank can not do so, except maybe the Kanga. Now WiGEs.
But as stated a 5/5 unit is skilled as any other 5/5 unit.
There are a few scenarios where the recruits of a mech are sent out with 8/8 skills. Most don't do this as it is very frustrating to do anything, even running over rough terrain. Any piloting roll tends to send you to the ground, and getting back up is about worthless. Hitting anything is about the same.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | >> (show all)
Extra information
2 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: 158777


Contact Admins Sarna.net