Jump to content

Corbett's Corner


123 replies to this topic

#81 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 785 posts

Posted 02 March 2015 - 11:17 PM

View PostJaroth Corbett, on 02 March 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

I am not sure what he means though. I played both MW3 & MW4 & you could torso twist in those games. In fact in MW4 the Mad Dog could twist 360 degrees & the Summoner could twist 180 degrees.


In MW3, some mechs like the Nova, Puma, and Cauldron Born could not torso twist. That made them objectively inferior in a fight. MW4 had a couple of fixed torsos in the MekPak expansions. In the TT, mechs like the one I mentioned have the no-torso twist design quirk. What lore reason could there be for designing 'Mechs that lack a useful feature?

#82 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,684 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 03 March 2015 - 04:27 AM

View PostSeth, on 02 March 2015 - 11:17 PM, said:


In MW3, some mechs like the Nova, Puma, and Cauldron Born could not torso twist. That made them objectively inferior in a fight. MW4 had a couple of fixed torsos in the MekPak expansions. In the TT, mechs like the one I mentioned have the no-torso twist design quirk. What lore reason could there be for designing 'Mechs that lack a useful feature?

Unless it is just a design "flaw", i am not sure. My best guess is lower profile, like some WWII tanks that did not have a rotating turret and could only slightly rotate the gun.

Edited by CyclonerM, 03 March 2015 - 04:28 AM.


#83 Jaroth Corbett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 2,252 posts
  • LocationSmoke Jaguar OZ

Posted 03 March 2015 - 06:43 AM

View PostSeth, on 02 March 2015 - 11:17 PM, said:


In MW3, some mechs like the Nova, Puma, and Cauldron Born could not torso twist. That made them objectively inferior in a fight. MW4 had a couple of fixed torsos in the MekPak expansions. In the TT, mechs like the one I mentioned have the no-torso twist design quirk. What lore reason could there be for designing 'Mechs that lack a useful feature?


Wow. I do not even remember that. Now I really feel like an old man Seth. :(

Edited by Jaroth Corbett, 03 March 2015 - 06:44 AM.


#84 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:17 PM

View PostCyclonerM, on 03 March 2015 - 04:27 AM, said:

Unless it is just a design "flaw", i am not sure. My best guess is lower profile, like some WWII tanks that did not have a rotating turret and could only slightly rotate the gun.

Those were not tanks, they were designated assault guns (like the German Wespe, the US M-10) or other anti-tank vehicles like the jagdpanther see below). The Swedish S-Tank is the only anomaly of a Tanks which dispensed with the turret.

Posted Image

Edited by Gremlich Johns, 03 March 2015 - 02:25 PM.


#85 Gremlich Johns

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 3,855 posts
  • LocationMaryland, USA

Posted 03 March 2015 - 02:26 PM

View PostDeadfire, on 02 March 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Incorrect, Zell would mean you engaged with Warriors not losing sight of each other.

We didn't, I was unclear in my recounting of the event it seems - I chased him out and he was always in sight.

#86 TibsVT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Commander
  • Star Commander
  • 421 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationIronhold (Sydney, Australia)

Posted 03 March 2015 - 03:57 PM

I would just like to say thanks to Loremaster Corbett for this thread. It is nice to see someone going out of their way for their fellow trothkin.

#87 Vincent V. Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel IV
  • Star Colonel IV
  • 299 posts
  • LocationWarrior, Command Star, Alpha Galaxy, Clan Wolf.

Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:26 AM

View PostSeth, on 02 March 2015 - 11:17 PM, said:

In MW3, some mechs like the Nova, Puma, and Cauldron Born could not torso twist. That made them objectively inferior in a fight. MW4 had a couple of fixed torsos in the MekPak expansions. In the TT, mechs like the one I mentioned have the no-torso twist design quirk. What lore reason could there be for designing 'Mechs that lack a useful feature?


The lack of a torso twist ability has in this topic only been described as a negative aspect of the 'Mech. What if the design of the 'Mech was intentional and that it had a lot of other strengths? Like... Increased turn rate?

Being able to turn your 'Mech faster than other 'Mechs would easily be handy for a 'Mech that cannot torso twist. Also, lower profile would mean you are much harder to hit.

I was hoping they would implement this on the Nova but it stands out like a sore thumb. Got a feeling the Ebon Jaguar will as well unfortunatly. :-/

#88 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:00 AM

One benefit from lack of independant torso twisting is it would likely involve less complicated moving parts and would therefore be easier and cheaper to manufacture.

This might not make it a more beneficial mech to pilot of course, but you were looking for possible benefits.

Edited by Noesis, 04 March 2015 - 07:02 AM.


#89 Vincent V. Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Star Colonel IV
  • Star Colonel IV
  • 299 posts
  • LocationWarrior, Command Star, Alpha Galaxy, Clan Wolf.

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:06 AM

Just thought of a few other positive aspects of the lack of a Torso Twist;

- Lower 'Mech cost due to the lack of the components needed for torso twisting. The arms would move independent of the torso completely due to this of course.
- A new thing to master. We all use torso twisting now to spread damage and avoid losing vital components. The lack of a torso twist would bring forth new aspects when it comes to piloting a 'Mech.

#90 VoodooLou Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 595 posts
  • LocationMember #2618

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:40 PM

View PostSeth, on 02 March 2015 - 11:17 PM, said:


In MW3, some mechs like the Nova, Puma, and Cauldron Born could not torso twist. That made them objectively inferior in a fight. MW4 had a couple of fixed torsos in the MekPak expansions. In the TT, mechs like the one I mentioned have the no-torso twist design quirk. What lore reason could there be for designing 'Mechs that lack a useful feature?

Nova had a limited Torso twist of 30 degrees each way, Adder had 0 torso twist, Cauldron Born had a 75 degree torso twist each way in MW3. In WM4 Clan Pack the Cauldron Born had full 90 degree torso twist

#91 Jaroth Corbett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 2,252 posts
  • LocationSmoke Jaguar OZ

Posted 05 March 2015 - 10:48 AM

View Postreddevil, on 01 March 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

I have a question about CJF. What was the deal behind the Mongol doctrine? I guess I should read the books, but what was the perceived benefit of going so extreme?


View PostJaroth Corbett, on 02 March 2015 - 04:25 PM, said:

Actually it started after Malvina's brother Alexander got killed. On her sick bed she told Beckett Malthus that she rejected the Clan way of doing things. That is where it started. The novel was Flight of the Falcons IIRC. At work now, so i cannot confirm. Will do so when I get home.


As promised. The birth of the Mongol Doctrine.

Spoiler


Dark Age 10 - Flight of the Falcon

Edited by Jaroth Corbett, 05 March 2015 - 10:55 AM.


#92 pbiggz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,684 posts
  • LocationOutreach

Posted 05 March 2015 - 09:30 PM

View PostJaroth Corbett, on 05 March 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

As promised. The birth of the Mongol Doctrine.
Spoiler
Dark Age 10 - Flight of the Falcon


jeez thats some **** writing.

#93 CyclonerM

    Tina's Warrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 5,684 posts
  • LocationA 2nd Wolf Guards Grenadiers JumpShip

Posted 06 March 2015 - 05:12 AM

View Postpbiggz, on 05 March 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:


jeez thats some **** writing.

I was trying to read a Dark Age novel but i stopped reading after a while.. I really did not like that writing.

#94 Wingbreaker

    Troubadour

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Sureshot
  • The Sureshot
  • 1,724 posts
  • LocationThe city that care forgot

Posted 06 March 2015 - 02:20 PM

View Postpbiggz, on 05 March 2015 - 09:30 PM, said:


jeez thats some **** writing.


This communuty.

lol.

#95 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 785 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 02:55 PM

Another question about Mech construction. What lore reason is there for hardwiring equipment onto an Omnimech that could otherwise be equipped as a modular component. Examples I'm referring to include the Flamer on the Adder and the entire torso full of Heatsinks in the Warhawk.

#96 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 06 March 2015 - 03:34 PM

View PostSeth, on 06 March 2015 - 02:55 PM, said:

Another question about Mech construction. What lore reason is there for hardwiring equipment onto an Omnimech that could otherwise be equipped as a modular component. Examples I'm referring to include the Flamer on the Adder and the entire torso full of Heatsinks in the Warhawk.


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech

#97 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 785 posts

Posted 06 March 2015 - 04:16 PM

View PostNoesis, on 06 March 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:



Thanks, but the question still stands.

#98 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 06 March 2015 - 11:33 PM

View PostSeth, on 06 March 2015 - 04:16 PM, said:

Thanks, but the question still stands.


Not sure I understand the question fully then. The sarna link provided explains the origins and reasons (applied also) why omnimech technology was developed and mentions the various advantages of using this tech in the field.

Can you ellaborate your question then as to what you are specifically looking for, to help the research?

#99 Jaroth Corbett

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • The Vicious
  • 2,252 posts
  • LocationSmoke Jaguar OZ

Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:15 AM

I think he is pointing out that the whole point of the Omnimech is to be modular & have parts that can be swapped out a moment's notice to best suit the battlefield the warriors will be fighting on. He is wondering why then there would be a fixed system that is hardwired into the Mech that cannot be swapped out. To his example of the Adder, it is not even just an energy slot that you can put a ML/MPL/SL/SPL etc., it is just a Flamer. PERIOD.

#100 Seth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • Moderate Giver
  • 785 posts

Posted 07 March 2015 - 12:21 AM

Sure. Considering the advantage of modular equipment in an Omnimech, for what reason would any equipment that could normally be equipped as modular equipment be hardwired to the design? For example, the Mist Lynx has an active probe hardwired to the design so that it cannot be removed and appears in every variant. It would be more advantageous if the active probe could be removed and installed on an as needed basis as can be done on other Omnis. What lore reason could there be for hardwiring it to the chassis? I'm not asking about removing or installing an engine, armor, or structural equipment that is considered fixed under Omnimech construction rules.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users