wartang
11/19/03 11:51 AM
164.106.170.76
|
had an idea take a 100tonner internals and stick it in a 50 tonner
acording to the armor rules you can only put 2 armor points on 1 internal structure point
so why cant you build a 100 mech and stop at 50 tons
or has this been posted before
i love this game
|
tgsofgc
11/19/03 02:01 PM
67.4.198.115
|
Battletech never dealt much with that. I am sure a FASA style answer would be something along the lines of: The internal structure is related as much to the size of the mech as the mass and the large empty frame weighted down with heavy armor would likely collapse inwards on it self, especially after being shot. Actual answers, 2 part:
1. To preserve game balance
2. There is no practical reason like mg ammo exploding for 400 pts of damage/ton
This could make a decent optional rule. Namely you can recalculate engine weight based on "real" weight of the mech. Heck you could even take this further and if your willing to let players calculate the weight of their unit's arms in advance you could adjust engine speed up as the arms get blown off.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
|
widowmaker
11/20/03 01:20 AM
24.171.106.120
|
Yes, the real life reason is game balance. Here's my shot at the fluff reason:
Using an internal structure skeleton at less than it's designed weight (known as undertonning) causes problems that soon result in the 'Mech tearing itself apart. The internal structure mainly consists of the ferro-titanium 'bones' and myomer 'muscles' that allow the 'Mech to simulate human locomotion. The muscles are tuned to a specific strength, and the bones are built to withstand that strength, as determined by the intended total weight of the 'Mech. Undertonning creates a situation where the muscles are pulling harder than necessary, producing extra stress on the bones. This inevitably has one of two results: either the muscles pull themselves away from the bones, breaking their linkages; or the bones crack from the stress. Both leave the 'Mech crippled and in need of lengthy repairs.
This situation regularly occurs on the battlefield as 'Mechs take damage, but usually only in limited locations across the 'Mech. The effects of undertonning are slow-developing, and regular maintenance prevents their occurence on standard 'Mechs. This argument has been presented before in favor of undertonning, but the logic is flawed. First, standard 'Mechs in garrison duty require minimal maintenance, while an undertonned 'Mech would require battlefield-level maintenance, as it would constantly damage itself. Second, standard 'Mechs in a combat situation have no undertonning issues until they take damage, while an undertonned 'Mech would be aggravating its condition constantly, and could even find itself crippled before it even reached the battlefield. Overall, the concept of undertonning is non-cost-effective and dangerous to the 'Mechwarrior.
widowmaker
What's your dice fetish?
|
Cray
11/20/03 07:23 AM
147.160.1.5
|
I think everyone's wondered about this at one time or another. 
Technically, you have to use up all your tonnage, so this isn't a legal mod, but the house rules are pretty obvious: vastly improved lifting capacity (all that unused "cargo" space), etc.
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.
|
wartang
11/20/03 01:52 PM
209.201.75.38
|
i was thinking alomg the lines of "doubleing the bones" if you will. allmost like reinforced internal structure but stronger
i love this game
|