96 replies to this topic

[TygerLily]

Gotcha jobe...

Yea, having a way to upgrade or downgrade your gyro would be cool...Maybe I want my assault to have better torso twist but I don't need the extra speed...etc.

[wanderer]

TygerLily, on 09 March 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Gotcha jobe...

Yea, having a way to upgrade or downgrade your gyro would be cool...Maybe I want my assault to have better torso twist but I don't need the extra speed...etc.

Later on, Battletech ends up with HD/XL, and compact gyros. HD gyros take more damage to disable (and hence kill a 'Mech) but weigh twice as much, compact ones also weigh twice as much but take up less space in the CT, and XL ones fill in the CT completely for half the normal weight.

Likewise, there's a small cockpit that reduces piloting performance but saves a crit space and 1 ton in the head, allowing you to mount bigger stuff. ER LL in your Hunchback noggin? It could happen.

[Eglar]

make it so, so I could finally have a tripple gauss ctf-im and my 6 uac5 JaegerDD ... oh wait you were talking about locusts?Guess that's why I can't have anything good :*(

[Rhent]

Cannon is that engines no matter what their size always have 10 heat sinks, no more and no less. But once Piranha decided attempted to build a mech game, they screwed up and made it where heat sinks are variable. Its not like 40 years of play testing before them had already determined what would work best. But hey, the Piranha developers could have got confused and thought they were playing Warhammer LIttlest Strawberry Shortcake simulator and used that rule set by mistake. Its not as if the Devs have actually played Mechwarrior in the past.

[Escef]

Rhent, on 09 March 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Cannon is that engines no matter what their size always have 10 heat sinks, no more and no less. But once Piranha decided attempted to build a mech game, they screwed up and made it where heat sinks are variable. Its not like 40 years of play testing before them had already determined what would work best. But hey, the Piranha developers could have got confused and thought they were playing Warhammer LIttlest Strawberry Shortcake simulator and used that rule set by mistake. Its not as if the Devs have actually played Mechwarrior in the past.

40 years of playtesting? I'm hoping that's a typo, because the game is NOT older than me. Also, while we're on the subject, I would point out that all of this "playtesting" has left us with AC2s and AC5s that are just this side of useless, and a 14 ton cannon with a smaller engagement range than a modern M16-series rifle.

[wanderer]

1980's-2014 is actually more like 30 years, not 40.

And please, let me laugh harder about AC/2-AC/5's being useless when they're being strapped left and right on meta-'Mechs like the Victor/Highlander/Jagermech/Cataphract. As for the ranges? Yep. It's to actually be able to fight at ranges other than edge-of-horizon.

If they had weapons with realistic ranges, we'd also be killing people by shooting from the far corner of a map to the other side.

[Escef]

wanderer, on 10 March 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

And please, let me laugh harder about AC/2-AC/5's being useless when they're being strapped left and right on meta-'Mechs like the Victor/Highlander/Jagermech/Cataphract. As for the ranges? Yep. It's to actually be able to fight at ranges other than edge-of-horizon.

Let me laugh at the fact that you didn't realize we were talking about table top Battletech, dipwad. Y'know, where for the same tonnage as an AC5 and 20 rounds (20 shots per ton in TT, plus lower armor values and RoF makes that a viable amount of ammo) you can have 2 LRM5s, 48 shots to split between them (that is, 240 individual missiles launched in groups of 5), a medium laser (which is a pin point damage weapon in TT), and 2 extra heat sinks?

[wanderer]

You mean the guns you use to kill tanks and fast, light units with?

You know, AP ammo for a crit shot every time on armored vehicles that you'd normally have to bore through dozens of points of armor on, precision for breaking light, fast units because they no longer get a movement modifier?

Or are you one of those guys who only plays TT Battletech as "giant robot on giant robot"? Cause yeah, they suck on those. DHS means the energy weapon rules the roost post-3050, but I always had fun mowing down guys with cheap-o tanks and infantry that the usual great-for-Mech weaponry didn't do much good against. And so did my buddies. I learned the value of super-effective weaponry vs. specialty units early, which made the AC and LAC good friends of mine.

[Escef]

wanderer, on 10 March 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

You mean the guns you use to kill tanks and fast, light units with?

You know, AP ammo for a crit shot every time on armored vehicles that you'd normally have to bore through dozens of points of armor on, precision for breaking light, fast units because they no longer get a movement modifier?

Or are you one of those guys who only plays TT Battletech as "giant robot on giant robot"? Cause yeah, they suck on those. DHS means the energy weapon rules the roost post-3050, but I always had fun mowing down guys with cheap-o tanks and infantry that the usual great-for-Mech weaponry didn't do much good against. And so did my buddies. I learned the value of super-effective weaponry vs. specialty units early, which made the AC and LAC good friends of mine.

Mostly I was limiting it to the old Level I/Introductory level. Y'know, the bare basic level where game balance still doesn't exist? Though I prefer inflammatory weapons for dealing with conventional armor, and mines and mine clearance rounds are great against fast movers, too.

The point being, the point I was trying to make (and one you seem to agree with based on your DHS comment), was that trying to hold table top up as some paragon of game balance that puts PGI to shame is nothing more than rampant, mindless fanboy-ism. I love TT as much as anyone, loved the game since I was 11 (38 now). But I don't make farcical claims of it being well balanced.

Edited by Escef, 10 March 2014 - 01:24 PM.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 09 March 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

I would point out that all of this "playtesting" has left us with AC2s and AC5s that are just this side of useless

I beg to differ. Range is a very important characteristic, and being able to harass and put damage on an opponent while he can't touch you is anything but "useless". And of course: Hit the head, roll a crit, roll a 12, and he's dead - no matter what weapon you used or what 'mech he was in.

Escef, on 09 March 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

a 14 ton cannon with a smaller engagement range than a modern M16-series rifle.

Did you know?

The average tank engagement in WWII took place at under 1,000 yards.
The average infantry engagement in WWII took place at well under 400 yards.

Does that mean that the WWII-era tank guns had max ranges of 1,000 yards, or that the infantry rifles had max ranges of 400 yards? No, there are reports of tank kills in excess of 4,800 yards in WWII.

What does it mean? It means that BattleTech rules use effective range, not theoretical max range (there are actual rules for line-of-sight, horizon range combat, but those are very, very seldom used - the kitchen table is only so large, after all).

[Escef]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

I beg to differ. Range is a very important characteristic, and being able to harass and put damage on an opponent while he can't touch you is anything but "useless". And of course: Hit the head, roll a crit, roll a 12, and he's dead - no matter what weapon you used or what 'mech he was in.

You lose a whopping 3 hexes of range in dropping from an AC2 to a mix of LRMs and medium laser (though you more than double your firepower under a lot of circumstances). You GAIN 3 hexes of range by swapping from AC5 to LRMs and medium laser.

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

Did you know?

The average tank engagement in WWII took place at under 1,000 yards.
The average infantry engagement in WWII took place at well under 400 yards.

Does that mean that the WWII-era tank guns had max ranges of 1,000 yards, or that the infantry rifles had max ranges of 400 yards? No, there are reports of tank kills in excess of 4,800 yards in WWII.

What does it mean? It means that BattleTech rules use effective range, not theoretical max range (there are actual rules for line-of-sight, horizon range combat, but those are very, very seldom used - the kitchen table is only so large, after all).

Did you know that the longest range confirmed kill by a tank was by a British Challenger 1 (an early 80s era tank and contemporary to Battletech's creation) at a range of 5100 meters?

I'm not saying expanding ballistic range for table top would be a good idea. If you think I said that than you read far more into my words than was there. But there is this thing about suspension of disbelief, and TT BT ballistic ranges force me to consciously exercise it.

I'm very familiar with the explanations and justifications on this matter.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Did you know that the longest range confirmed kill by a tank was by a British Challenger 1 (an early 80s era tank and contemporary to Battletech's creation) at a range of 5100 meters?

I did not know that, thanks for letting me know. I love these little factoids.

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

there is this thing about suspension of disbelief, and TT BT ballistic ranges force me to consciously exercise it.

I don't know what's so hard to justify? It's a game, it doesn't have to make perfect sense as long as it's not glaringly internally inconsistent.

Ranges are short because the BT battlefield is chock-full of countermeasures and the targeting computer has its hands full just trying to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

Anyone even remotely familiar with any kind of weapon can easily understand that guns have a range above which they no longer penetrate (or ablate, as it would be in BT) effectively. Those ranges are very, very short in BT.

[Escef]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

I don't know what's so hard to justify?

As the mass of a projectile increases the energy necessary to overcome said projectile's inertia increases, and once in flight that same inertia causes the round to take longer to slow. Combine this with the kind of muzzle velocities that cannons generate, and perhaps you can understand why TT BT ballistic ranges jar me somewhat.

And I never said it was hard to justify. Stop inserting your ideas into my text.

BTW, don't talk to me about weapon ranges and about how the ones in TT BT make sense to you. When I've scored bull's eyes on targets using a modern rifle (M16A2, which is not even close to a sniper weapon) and dead iron sights at longer range than an AC20's normal TT max, yeah, it screws with my suspension of disbelief. I know and understand the justifications. They're in Total Warfare, and I've seen Herb Beas comment on them as well. So, kindly, stop throwing them in my face repeatedly as if I've never seen them before.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

As the mass of a projectile increases the energy necessary to overcome said projectile's inertia increases, and once in flight that same inertia causes the round to take longer to slow. Combine this with the kind of muzzle velocities that cannons generate, and perhaps you can understand why TT BT ballistic ranges jar me somewhat.

And I never said it was hard to justify. Stop inserting your ideas into my text.

BTW, don't talk to me about weapon ranges and about how the ones in TT BT make sense to you. When I've scored bull's eyes on targets using a modern rifle (M16A2, which is not even close to a sniper weapon) and dead iron sights at longer range than an AC20's normal TT max, yeah, it screws with my suspension of disbelief. I know and understand the justifications. They're in Total Warfare, and I've seen Herb Beas comment on them as well. So, kindly, stop throwing them in my face repeatedly as if I've never seen them before.

Very well, you are of course quite welcome to your beliefs (I'm under no illusion I can affect them anyway), and it wasn't my intention to stop you from having your suspension of disbelief screwed with, if that's the way you want to have it.

I merely wanted to point out that your assertion that AC/2 and AC/5 are "just this side of useless" isn't shared by everyone, that the ranges are what they are mainly due to the fact that a kitchen table is a rather limited area, and that effective range is not the same as maximum range.

I do apologize if I offended.

Just for the record, I've also regularly put bullets through quarter-targets at 300 metres with both bolt-action (Mauser Model 1896, open iron sights) and assault rifles (a H&K G3A3-derivate with iron sights in my case and not a M16, but still), but that doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief of a science fiction game. I'm sorry if it does yours.

[Escef]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Very well, you are of course quite welcome to your beliefs (I'm under no illusion I can affect them anyway), and it wasn't my intention to stop you from having your suspension of disbelief screwed with, if that's the way you want to have it.

I merely wanted to point out that your assertion that AC/2 and AC/5 are "just this side of useless" isn't shared by everyone, that the ranges are what they are mainly due to the fact that a kitchen table is a rather limited area, and that effective range is not the same as maximum range.

I do apologize if I offended.

Just for the record, I've also regularly put bullets through quarter-targets at 300 metres with both bolt-action (Mauser Model 1896, open iron sights) and assault rifles (a H&K G3A3-derivate with iron sights in my case and not a M16, but still), but that doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief of a science fiction game. I'm sorry if it does yours.

Wow, apology for offense, but continues to talk down the whole time? You're a piece of work, guy.

[stjobe]

Escef, on 10 March 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Wow, apology for offense, but continues to talk down the whole time? You're a piece of work, guy.

If that's the way you want to read it.

The apology was sincere, although I doubt me saying so will do much difference at this point.

[Escef]

stjobe, on 10 March 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

If that's the way you want to read it.

The apology was sincere, although I doubt me saying so will do much difference at this point.

Your sincerest of apologies is akin to the finest Pinto ever manufactured.

[Moromillas]

A light with 4 missile hardpoints? The impression that I get, is that the Locust is underpowered, but with 4 missile hardpoints?

[no one]

Moromillas, on 10 March 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

A light with 4 missile hardpoints? The impression that I get, is that the Locust is underpowered, but with 4 missile hardpoints?

Those 4 missile hard points exist to tease you. You can't actually fit 4 streaks, a BAP, ammo AND fit armor on the 'Mech unless you want to move slower than most medium 'Mechs. Try running one if you like but they're very limited. Which is not to say I don't enjoy my locust 3S, but I run it like a suicide dive bomber.

As to the OP; NO. The 'Mechs are using the proper number of heat sinks. This is as it should be, though I can't say I understand why PGI shuffled the tonnages around.

The only thing I would change is to give ultralight 'Mechs an improved cool-run skill, to compensate them for being forced to work with 1.4 DHS.

Edited by no one, 11 March 2014 - 10:36 PM.

[Moromillas]

no one, on 10 March 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

Those 4 missile hard points exist to tease you. You can't actually fit 4 streaks, a BAP, ammo AND fit armor on the 'Mech unless you want to move slower than most medium 'Mechs. Try running one if you like but they're very limited. Which is not to say I don't enjoy my locust 3S, but I run it like a suicide dive bomber.

As to the OP, No, the 'Mechs are using the proper number of heat sinks. This is as it should be, though I can't say I understand why PGI shuffled the tonnages around.

The only thing I would change is to give ultralight 'Mechs an improved cool-run skill, to compensate them for being forced to work with 1.4 DHS.

Not really what I meant. Weather or not 4 missiles with BAP and a large laser plus that kind of speed is too much of a buff. Weather being able to use that many is too much.

You can jam in 3 streaks and BAP, but it's a real tight squeeze.