75 replies to this topic

[Glare]

@the OP: Armor in BattleTech is not reactive, it's ablative. Put quite simply, it's designed to fracture, melt, and break away, but keep the 'Mech underneath otherwise undamaged. That's a fairly prominent part of BT lore and game 'Mechanics.

Moving to a penetrative model is an affront to BattleTech proper, no matter how much sense it makes for modern-day armor and arms.

[Rockjaw]

Glare: I'm not even going to validate that with a response. Not that there would be one that would satisfy you anyway.

Imp: So basically you never want improvements, vanilla it is, all the way. If you want the game to be completely true to the game (not the books mind you, the board game) then you should probably make your own thread saying so. I am discussing the best possible improvements to make the game more true to reality. Therefore I am attempting to emulate some reality here. Within reason and technical possibility of course.

Edited by Rockjaw, 07 November 2011 - 04:31 PM.

[Glare]

Don't dismiss my post out of hand and then turn around and say you're trying to make the game true to the reality the books are based in.

The reality the books are based in is the reality of BattleTech fluff and fiction, which includes the TechManual and Total Warfare, both of which clearly describe BattleTech armor as ablative.

Edited by Glare, 07 November 2011 - 04:32 PM.

[ELHImp]

Ok. I tried change your mind, and looks like failed. And sorry, it's your right: make fantasies about any "improvements".

[Rockjaw]

Glare: A grammatical error on my part and one that I corrected. Your post was by nature inflammatory as was your follow up. I have no need to answer it beyond the technical. Reactive armor is clearly outlined as an option. That is all.

Imp: That is your first mistake. I'm here to discuss things. Not change peoples minds. I have to admit that I'm surprised that you never outlined why you dont want changes beyond the fact that you want to be able to kill an assault mech with a scout. If it's the challenge you want I don't see why even my system would be so upsetting as it makes it that much more of a challenge. Nonetheless, good luck in the future.

[Tweaks]

Rockjaw, I hate to admit it, but Glare has a point. I don't know enough BT lore and never actually played the tabletop game, but if it's in the tech manual then it's how it has to be in MWO, or PG will fail to create a game true to the name.

[Rockjaw]

Tweaks,

noted. He has a point. If we were trying to make a game that already exists many times over sure why not, stick to the tabletop rules. However, #1 ablative armor is not the only given option in the game. (as a matter of fact, certain types seem to be solid in nature, stealth armor comes to mind.) and #2 ablative armor will still have to take a solid hit in order to come off. There are even some helpful diagrams in the manuals etc that show the ablative armor as being layered solid to non solid. So that first layer will have to be penetrated and essentially destroyed in order to come off. I'm talking about the power needed to do so. Or is he saying that all armor in this universe is the same thickness?

Quote

This means that it is generally destroyed or blown off when hit, but in the process of doing so, it absorbs enormous energies, protecting the unit it is mounted on.

The point of the ablative nature (as stated in the manual that he is no doubt referring to) is to absorb enormous energies and essentially shatter. This does not necessarily have to be the case for small caliber weapons. And in fact I would love to hear how he expects his armor to protect him from heavy fire but wither under small caliber fire.

What say you glare? how do you figure?

[minobu tetsuharu]

I also advocate not following the existing boardgame strictly. It should just be used atleast as a guideline because how else are you going to make people feel like Mechwarriors if you deviate from everything that is basically known about how the combat works.

[Rockjaw]

Minobu,

I agree with you. Strong basis in the board-game, but not a strict copy.

[Mercurial]

No matter how you cut the 'ablative' approach though, in terms of game design, creating some sort of armor 'value' that either mitigates incoming damage for weapons below a certain value or dismisses certain weapons outright is going to hurt the 'lighter' mechs every time simply by warrant of being able to fit less--or any. A vital part of the small mech relationship in a game where there's nothing much else to busy itself with is going to be chipping away at larger mechs in exposed flanks and rears, particularly once everyone's engaged and there's nothing to recon.

The alternative is you change all the light mechs weapons around to make sure they are mostly--or only--carrying weapons that 'chip' at hard armor values, but that either makes the issue irrelevalent.

Plus, we're talking about giant, fusion powered bipedal robots that run around scorched battlefields shooting each other with lasers and particle weapons. Realism's kind of taken a hike around the point where some of them could momentarily fly through the air and land with no real damage to themselves or the ground they land on.

[Pht]

Glare, on 07 November 2011 - 04:13 PM, said:

@the OP: Armor in BattleTech is not reactive, it's ablative. Put quite simply, it's designed to fracture, melt, and break away, but keep the 'Mech underneath otherwise undamaged. That's a fairly prominent part of BT lore and game 'Mechanics.

Moving to a penetrative model is an affront to BattleTech proper, no matter how much sense it makes for modern-day armor and arms.

Battletech proper has this roll in the tables, rolled for every weapon that hits - it determines if you get a penetrating (critical) hit.

You sir, are wrong.

minobu tetsuharu, on 07 November 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

I also advocate not following the existing boardgame strictly. It should just be used atleast as a guideline because how else are you going to make people feel like Mechwarriors if you deviate from everything that is basically known about how the combat works.

The TT game can provide the performance capabilities of 'Mechs and their interactions with their environmental conditions quite well.

You don't have to turn an MW game into a turn based grognard fest to use most of the TT rules.

Edited by Pht, 07 November 2011 - 05:56 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Everyone who has not, should go here and look up what interests you about the Rules of the TT game play. If nothing else there is something to be learned and help balance things between game models.

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

Search under "Armor" to see what the Dev's have to deal with if going by the book. Then search "Armor Piercing".

Edited by MaddMaxx, 07 November 2011 - 05:56 PM.

[Rockjaw]

Mercurial: Not to be frustrating, but I both agree and disagree. Let me explain. First, lights should be able to engage other lights easily due to the well, lightness, of their armor. So in that and recon they already have a purpose. That's where I disagree.

Second, take 4 lights. Even granting that they "chip" at armor more than they tear through it the 4 combined are likely to be able to lay low most heavies and assault mechs on the basis that they are more maneuverable and can easily "dance around" the heavy. This allows for a combined assault that makes many lights = 1-2 heavs work out. That's my thinking.


And 60 ton walking robots flying? Well...most aircraft exceed that these days. It works out so far. We'll see...

Pht: thanks for the thought. totally escaped me and I don't know why. Those D*mned dice rolls.

Madd: Thanks for the link.

Edited by Rockjaw, 07 November 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[Mercurial]

Aircraft also require substantial aerodynamics, thrust, initial speed and require either runway space or extensive VTOL to land. Mechs can 'ascend' from a standstill, jump their maximum distance and speed, pivot and spin in the air like a ballerina if they feel like it and land compeltely safely (Also the F/A 18 is like 18 tons fully armed. Pretty far cry from something like a frigging Highlander!) Bit of a difference!

I guess now I'm just a little confused--as it stands, Light mechs basically 'chip' at Assault mechs anyway, as they're likely to have less/smaller weapons. Changing to a pure pen model would just ensure that less weapons can legitmately do this--which would either have the effect of Pigeon holing Light mechs into using only pen weaponry (because equipping weaponry that deals damage to lighter but doesn't pen heavier is a poorer tradeoff, less flexible, and it's a good chance the penetrative stuff can do the job just as well) or, if they're largely unavailable or completely unavailable to lights, shrug them off entirely. (As the team will sacrifice the ability to do significant damage for scouting, since in a worst case scenario, once the light mech is done scouting he ends up either sparring with another light because there's nothing else he CAN kill or doing nothing. )

Honestly though, it's not Light mech's I'd worry about--it's Medium mechs. It just seems like either Lights would be shrugged off (Since Mediums are signficantly faster than heavy/assault, and can absorb 'big guns', might as well let them scout) or mediums would be shrugged off (because neither can equip enough weapons to matter).

[Pht]

Mercurial, on 07 November 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

Aircraft also require substantial aerodynamics, thrust, initial speed and require either runway space or extensive VTOL to land. Mechs can 'ascend' from a standstill, jump their maximum distance and speed, pivot and spin in the air like a ballerina if they feel like it and land compeltely safely (Also the F/A 18 is like 18 tons fully armed. Pretty far cry from something like a frigging Highlander!) Bit of a difference!

'Mechs in the air are, compared to being on the ground, relatively unsteady. That said, they're still pretty capable while jumping - their gyros do a pretty good job at keeping them upright, and the jets can be feathered to control direction.

Quote

I guess now I'm just a little confused--as it stands, Light mechs basically 'chip' at Assault mechs anyway, as they're likely to have less/smaller weapons.

All weapons that hit have a chance to penetrate, regardless of the amount of armor left on the target 'Mechs section they hit. The advanced rules modify theses chances in a way that makes sense - weapons that do large amounts of damage in single groups (gauss, for example) have a better chance of "blowing through" armor and damaging something inside of the target.

There's also the factor that the rear armor on even assault mechs is fairly thin - and light mechs are great at exploiting this.

Lights are mostly for the recon/anti-recon game, mediums are the workhorse and they pin down targets so that your heavy 'Mechs can get there and finish whatever off. Assaults are mostly defensive - they're comparatively too slow to manuver quickly enough on the battlefield vs anything besides another assault to be effective in open combat vs smart enemies.

[Rockjaw]

Merc: take it easy, I do a lot of aircraft already. (was an aeronautics major ) I was thinking cargo stuff which by number is the vast majority. But that's neither here nor there.

I like to think that it makes lights work together. You keep approaching the problem from a 1 vs 1 perspective. I'm not thinking that that is the case we will have in the game. I mean...only time will tell. But I'm not thinking 1vs1. I'm thinking more like 3-4vs1.

Anyway. You have a point which is valid whether we are talking about my preferred damage sim or not. The mediums CAN do the job that the lights do...heck a lot of the time a medium can keep up with them while toting more/better weapons.

And honestly There is a problem with the lights either way. I've been witnessing it a LOT in WoT. Multiple vectors of fire when on the move (see: scouting the battlefield) shut down a light tank d*mn quick. I don't know how the light mechs will survive at all in either case. That's gonna be rough. Maybe a tiered system like Wot? Or an electronics advantage? Either way...they are gonna be a difficult class to play well I think.

[Glare]

Pht, on 07 November 2011 - 05:54 PM, said:

Battletech proper has this roll in the tables, rolled for every weapon that hits - it determines if you get a penetrating (critical) hit.

You sir, are wrong.

You are half correct. Yes, there is such a roll on the tables. However, the only way to get such a roll is with a 2 on the hit tables. That translates to exactly 1/36 chance of a penetrating hit, or approximately 2.8% chance. Clearly, the exceptional hit, not the normal.

Further backing up my position is how all Tournament Legal types of armor suffer damage in the exact same way. Damage is taken directly to the armor, which in 97.233(repeating)% of all hits will not penetrate the armor before it is all gone. The only exceptions are Hardened Armor and the Clan Ferro-Lamellar Armor, which take half damage (but still damage, same chance of penetrating hit) and one less damage per hit (still damage, same tiny chance of penetrating hit).

I fail to see how my initial post was inflammatory. I was drawing your attention to how this suggestion is by its very nature not within the scope of Battletech as a standard mechanic.

[Rockjaw]

I will answer in the order that you have asked. My term "Penetrated" could perhaps be better stated as "effective". I believe that a handgun should not be counted as .5 points of damage for every shot that hits a mech. Since each round could not possibly penetrate the first layer of armor I would refer to the shot as noneffective. Until a kinetic round reaches a certain size and velocity they will not penetrate the initial layer of armor. Therefore I believe that small caliber munitions should be ineffective against Heavily armored mechs.

I.E. Machine gun spamming is out.

You initial post was inflammatory because of the way in which it was stated. Much like the phrase "I dont think that color looks good on you" can be restated "d*mn you look like an ugly f*** today". The delivery is phrased in such a way as to be a naturally inciting phrasing.

to say

Quote

Moving to a penetrative model is an affront to BattleTech proper, no matter how much sense it makes for modern-day armor and arms

is not the same as

Quote

I was drawing your attention to how this suggestion is by its very nature notwithin the scope of Battletech as a standard mechanic.

Are things more clear now?

Edited by Rockjaw, 07 November 2011 - 06:53 PM.

[Glare]

Yes, much more clear. However, the issue is still standing. BattleTech armor simply does not work that way, unless you're using Hardened or Clan Ferro-Lamellar, as outlined above. Using Hardened would reduce effectiveness of weapons by half, and and CFL reduces effectiveness by one point per hit.

Tell you what, I'll go dig up the official explanation from the BattleTech forums about why armor works like this, so we can stop arguing in such a fasion.

[Tweaks]

From the Sarna Wiki


Armor - BattleMechs & Vehicles

Introduced in 2470 by the Terran Hegemony^[1]. In the BattleTech universe, armor is ablative in nature. This means that it is generally destroyed or blown off when hit, but in the process of doing so, it absorbs enormous energies, protecting the unit it is mounted on. While powerful blows will still rock a vehicle, there will be little, if any, internal damage as long as long as armor plating still remains. Armor-piercing rounds do exist for certain weapons, but they require a higher technology level and cost more. As a result, destroying a 'Mech requires either immense firepower, concentrated fire on a vulnerable location, or a lucky hit.

Standard BattleMech armor is composed of several layers providing various degrees of protection and support. The first layer is extremely strong steel, the result of crystal alignment and radiation treatment, which is also very brittle. The second layer is a ceramic, cubic boron nitride, which combined with a web of artificial diamond fibers acts as a backstop to the steel layer. These two layers rest atop a titanium alloy honeycomb structure which provides support, and a layer of self-sealing polymer sealant which allows for space and underwater operations.^[2]

Noting the ablative nature of the armor, most vehicle designers have designed the armor for quick repairs on most units. In game terms, armor is repaired at the rate of 15 minutes per point of armor^[3]. Players familiar with BattleTech video games —like MechWarrior 3 and 4— might be used to even faster repairs by mobile field bases (where a damaged 'Mech is apparently repaired in moments), but the computer games represent repairs differently than the tabletop game.

Edited by Tweaks, 07 November 2011 - 07:44 PM.