963 replies to this topic

[KraftySOT]

http://www.stripes.c...e-a-10-1.305147

The only thing falling apart on the A10...is the goo they have to clean off the windshield

Those things have never, and never will, be a piece of crap.

[CDLord HHGD]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Airframe has been tested sound. NO stress shown, and the one component most likely to fatigue, the wings, were and or are, being upgraded already to new wings.

At best, idiot military brass is attempting to replace something without actually having a better replacement. At worst, some individuals are angling for special "advisory" roles with certain defense contractors once they hang up their nuggets, wings, etc.

In the time honored Military Brass on the take tradition. Really no different than doctors pushing pills for the Pharmaceuticals, or Politicians being lapdogs for the Special Interest Groups.

The A!0 not that long ago had been tested and rated to stay in the fleet til 2028, at the earliest, I believe. And now suddenly, it's falling apart?

Nope.


It also has a much higher stall speed, spends less time on target, can sustain considerably less ground fire.......

Also, the A10 doesn't require ANOTHER craft to enter airspace ahead of it. It is still in top shape, and the premier ground attack, counter insurgency aircraft in the world. By a lot.

I'd LOVE to see a new version of the A10. Modern avionics etc. natively in stead of shoe-honed into an existing airframe....

Could be worse, to save money, we could all be switching to the Super Tucano.....

[happy mech]

(not having read past first page)

i think it is good to stick to what has been proven on pen'n paper and around for few years
it specializes the mechs, but so do the different hardpoint locations
promoting the design the mech was made for (to bring it on par with all other mechs) is imo one of the safest things you can start with, without shaking the balance (if it works in battletech, it should work in a game too, fyi i know nothing about battletech)

so while there may be many more solutions that are better, this is not a bad one
remember it is first pass, things will iterate from there (you see the quirks that were issued before are getting changed too)

some numbers may be a bit off (though maybe the dragon deserves the -50% cd on ac5, definitely looking forward to see more dragons (diredagons?)), maybe giving more general bonuses would be better to keep some variety (ac2+ac5+uac5, ac10+lbx10+ac20 grouped together for example, so systems like ac2 have a chance to get on some daylight)
well all in all i am excited to see how it will work

edit: look into ghost heat if can

Edited by happy mech, 20 October 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Honestly airpower is over rated. It was great when movements were slow and fluidity was low. In the modern OODA, airpower has taken a backseat to drones, real politik, and light infantry.

[1453 R]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

And the least fair period of Battletech to me, was right before the clans. When there were less than 40 total mechs. Some designs were simply useless unless you liked kicking shins for two hours in the garage until someone fell over and couldnt get back up.

Then the clans albeit rather lame...did spawn a ridiculous amount of mechs both clan and IS. To the point where theres so many, that the bad designs just melt into the fabric. Theres so many variants of the designs too.

If you cant find exactly what you want out of the several thousand mechs and variants that exist now. Theres something bloody wrong with you. Every thing you can imagine, every lame munchkin design, to every horrible small laser and SRM 2 medium mech out there...it exists.

So actually digging into either set of rules for customizing your mech, or trying to figure out how to apply the repair rules to it, or just plain writing up your own mechs, seemed pointless.

The only time I did that was right when the clans came out because there were some clearly cheesey designs I wanted to try out and show off. Within a year...all those designs were in TROs.

So I never bothered doing anything but stock load outs ever again. Since theres always a stock load out to match my imagination.

Except the vast majority of those aren't available in MWO, and likely never will be. One-off 'Mechs with no subvariants to master out, or 'Mechs built fifty years into the future, or Harmony Golden Boyz no MechWarrior developer can ever afford to touch...

I know a number of players who use 'Mech customization to take a chassis close to the thing they want to pilot and make it closer. Not necessarily turning a Marauder into a Hammerhands (who actually wants to pilot a Hammerhands, anyways? o_O), but maybe, I dunno, turning a Cataphract into a bass-ackwards messed up Marauder? It's not a very good Marauder, but it's better than no Marauder at all. Which...is what the quirks system, as proposed, would leave people with. Sort of, anyways. I suppose most Cataphracts are good enough as it is that they can afford to go off-quirks, if painfully, in order to recreate the unavailable Marauder, but the same can't be said of everything else. People who bought Flames specifically to try and recreate the Grand Dragon, for instance, are going to be sorely miffed when the Flame's quirks augment its single AC/2 or some such instead of either the Gauss loadout that's actually good on it or the Grand Dragon lookalike that stock enthusiasts make out of it. Heck, I ran a Grand Flamedragon myself for a while. It stunk, sure, but it put a smile on my face anyways.

Customization isn't always about being an evil baby-eating newb-crunching Tyrannical PvP Overload, y'know. Sometimes it's about using the thing you like to use even if the thing you like to use isn't around to use yet. Or just because it's the thing you like to use. I understand that the TT folks really, truly, seriously super-hate customization and consider it a bastardized byproduct of previous MW games and nubs not playing the heart of the tabletop ruleset, but there are reasons for its existence. Yes, this is about the best middle ground we can all hope for, nobody's arguing that, but dagnabbit I liked being able to put Gauss rifles on my Dragons...

[Bishop Steiner]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Honestly airpower is over rated. It was great when movements were slow and fluidity was low. In the modern OODA, airpower has taken a backseat to drones, real politik, and light infantry.

Yup. Even the MBT is largely obsolete, currently. Unless Putin and Remaining Communist Blok decide to start another land war....

And even then, Modern Tech leaves a lot of traditional heavy weaponry iffy.

Makes me dang glad to be a civilian living on a beach in MExico, TBH.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Airframe has been tested sound. NO stress shown, and the one component most likely to fatigue, the wings, were and or are, being upgraded already to new wings.

At best, idiot military brass is attempting to replace something without actually having a better replacement. At worst, some individuals are angling for special "advisory" roles with certain defense contractors once they hang up their nuggets, wings, etc.

In the time honored Military Brass on the take tradition. Really no different than doctors pushing pills for the Pharmaceuticals, or Politicians being lapdogs for the Special Interest Groups.

The A!0 not that long ago had been tested and rated to stay in the fleet til 2028, at the earliest, I believe. And now suddenly, it's falling apart?

Nope.


It also has a much higher stall speed, spends less time on target, can sustain considerably less ground fire.......

They're not falling apart, but the munitions that the GAU-8 uses (depleted uranium) is a bit of a 'hot' topic so to speak, as there has been some radiological evidence to support that the rounds are not as depleted as they though, so easier for them to shuffle the A-10 into retirement, and replace it with something new...

There is evidence to show the the X-32B by Boeing was the better craft, it lacked a working VTOL, and the F-35 had a 'working' one... (mind you that working one, only worked twice, both times causing catastrophic damage to the air-craft...)

I shake my head at the F-35, and am sad to see it carrying such a legendary name, only to drag it through the mud. The F-35 can't turn, can't run and can't out fight the Russian Su-33/35/37's that would be hunting it.

It's like watching a Stock Kit Fox try to fight a Shadow Hawk....

[Alexander MacTaggart]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

The main argument against this proposal seems to be that some players feel that it muddies the waters and dilutes the entire purpose of the quirks system by making role/niche delineation less clear-cut, but my own thoughts are that less clear-cut delineation isn't necessarily a bad thing. And also I'm pretty sure that's not the case, as an extra double-plus of the stated bonus for the specific weapon would be a pretty starkly clear indication to new players of how Piranha wants them to play their 'Mech.

Generic quirks are a bad idea because they're generic. Exactly.

So you have Energy, Ballistic, and Missile quirks. Combine them with, what, Range, Cooldown, Velocity? That's 9 variations on quirks and then you can fudge them a little bit by varying the actual percentage.

Okay, so the HBK-4G should obviously get Ballistic and Energy, easy enough. The HBK-4J is Energy and Missile. The HBK-4SP is... Energy and Missile? The HBK-4H is Ballistic and... Energy?

Hmm, that's seeming kind of samey to me.

I actually thought the way you did when Russ first posted quirk examples. I was miffed that the -4G only got AC/20 quirks instead of stacking generic AC+AC20 ones. But the way they decided to do it actually works better for differentiating mechs - which is the whole reason quirks are being introduced in the first place.

You may not get a quirk for the weapon system you prefer on your current ride (assuming you're not in a meta-build, which won't be getting many quirks because they are the met-builds) but you also won't be penalized in any way for not building for the quirks on that chassis. Or, you can instead choose to start using the chassis that DOES get a quirk for the weapon system you prefer. You lose nothing, and still have the choice of continuing to play as you have been.

[Bishop Steiner]

1453 R, on 20 October 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Customization isn't always about being an evil baby-eating newb-crunching Tyrannical PvP Overload, y'know. Sometimes it's about using the thing you like to use even if the thing you like to use isn't around to use yet. Or just because it's the thing you like to use.

which of course, you can still do just as well with the quirks in use.......

[ShinobiHunter]

@ 1453 R, You can still put a Gauss rifle on your dragon if you want. It will work even better than it did before quirks. It may or may not be the optimal build for it depending on how they quirk whatever ballistic they decide to, but it will still work.

[KraftySOT]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Yup. Even the MBT is largely obsolete, currently. Unless Putin and Remaining Communist Blok decide to start another land war....

And even then, Modern Tech leaves a lot of traditional heavy weaponry iffy.

Makes me dang glad to be a civilian living on a beach in MExico, TBH.

Yeah and modern RPG systems and Helicopters started nailing the coffin shut on the MBT in the 90s. Most of what airpower was so good at nullifying on the battlefield is largely obsolete. Battleships and heavy cruisers, tanks, large formations of troops, supply dumps, transportation and production facilities.

Modern aircraft cant hope to see any of those things because they no longer exist or are relevant, or strike at them if they are, and even they could, theyre not nearly as effective as an ICBM launched from an array of platforms.

Edited by KraftySOT, 20 October 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 20 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

They're not falling apart, but the munitions that the GAU-8 uses (depleted uranium) is a bit of a 'hot' topic so to speak, as there has been some radiological evidence to support that the rounds are not as depleted as they though, so easier for them to shuffle the A-10 into retirement, and replace it with something new...

There is evidence to show the the X-32B by Boeing was the better craft, it lacked a working VTOL, and the F-35 had a 'working' one... (mind you that working one, only worked twice, both times causing catastrophic damage to the air-craft...)

I shake my head at the F-35, and am sad to see it carrying such a legendary name, only to drag it through the mud. The F-35 can't turn, can't run and can't out fight the Russian Su-33/35/37's that would be hunting it.

It's like watching a Stock Kit Fox try to fight a Shadow Hawk....

Osprey, F22, F35. See any trends in modern military procurement and design? Massive money boondoggle dragged out over decades, for weapons largely obsolete before they actually make it into the troopers hands. Heck they have already cancelled the remaining f22s, and the Osprey was one of the biggest boondoggles in recent USMC history.

And to a man, in Afganistan, or Iraq, ask the boots on the ground what they want flying overwatch and close support for them? Of course, those are the same people who have been trying to get the iffy 5.56 nato replaced by the SPC, and the .45 to again replace the less effective 9mm.

Politics. Special Interest. Greed and such. Gotta love it.

[KraftySOT]

Its actually kind of maddening when you realize all the air power devoted to disrupting supply and transportation networks in Vietnam was a complete waste.

Even more so when you read all the modern statistics of German production in world war two and notice that theyre were producing exponentially more every year until they lost. The 8th Airforce accomplished nothing but pilot attrition on both sides. (though one side had less pilots to lose)

Edited by KraftySOT, 20 October 2014 - 11:52 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Yeah and modern RPG systems and Helicopters started nailing the coffin shut on the MBT in the 90s. Most of what airpower was so good at nullifying on the battlefield is largely obsolete. Battleships and heavy cruisers, tanks, large formations of troops, supply dumps, transportation and production facilities.

Modern aircraft cant hope to see any of those things because they no longer exist or are relevant, or strike at them if they are, and even they could, theyre not nearly as effective as an ICBM launched from an array of platforms.

The catch 22? If you reduce to just Ground Attack aircraft, like A10s and Apaches, etc.... then the other guy brings out fast movers, which have no air cover?

So theoretically, I get it, you need overlapping systems, even if the current conflict doesn't really call for it. But you sure don't eliminate your most effective, both in theater and pocketbook, options.

Heck you can purchase 10-12 A10 for one F22 or F35.

And they require massively less logistics to maintain and keep full supplied in field, along with the ability to deploy form less than optimal forward outposts.

And that's not even touching it's effectiveness IN Theater.

Yes supposedly the idea is the F35 can handle the role of several planes... but just how well has that really turned out?

[KraftySOT]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Osprey, F22, F35. See any trends in modern military procurement and design? Massive money boondoggle dragged out over decades, for weapons largely obsolete before they actually make it into the troopers hands. Heck they have already cancelled the remaining f22s, and the Osprey was one of the biggest boondoggles in recent USMC history.

And to a man, in Afganistan, or Iraq, ask the boots on the ground what they want flying overwatch and close support for them? Of course, those are the same people who have been trying to get the iffy 5.56 nato replaced by the SPC, and the .45 to again replace the less effective 9mm.

Politics. Special Interest. Greed and such. Gotta love it.

Military industrial congressional complex.

Cant not produce this new fangled expensive thing...because then I lose votes because 1200 people making seats for the F22 lose their job when the plant closes, and im seen as weak on defense and unamerican.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Osprey, F22, F35. See any trends in modern military procurement and design? Massive money boondoggle dragged out over decades, for weapons largely obsolete before they actually make it into the troopers hands. Heck they have already cancelled the remaining f22s, and the Osprey was one of the biggest boondoggles in recent USMC history.

And to a man, in Afganistan, or Iraq, ask the boots on the ground what they want flying overwatch and close support for them? Of course, those are the same people who have been trying to get the iffy 5.56 nato replaced by the SPC, and the .45 to again replace the less effective 9mm.

Politics. Special Interest. Greed and such. Gotta love it.

The funny thing is, most of the boots on the ground would love more AC-130 coverage, and well I can't really blame them, those beasts are fantastic! but the 105's out the side are hell on the air-frame...

They used to use a .45, that's the funny part the M1911A1, replaced by the 9mm M9, mind you NATO and all that...

NATO tries to have everyone using the same bullets, so that ammo can be swapped. That being said, the 5.56mm does what it does, and does it well. It will effectively remove three people from the engagement, one wounded, two to carry him out. The 7.62 though more effective in an urban setting, will kill one. Given my choice, .50 BMG is the way to go...

[Alexander MacTaggart]

I love how this thread isn't even about quirks anymore.

[KraftySOT]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 October 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

The catch 22? If you reduce to just Ground Attack aircraft, like A10s and Apaches, etc.... then the other guy brings out fast movers, which have no air cover?

So theoretically, I get it, you need overlapping systems, even if the current conflict doesn't really call for it. But you sure don't eliminate your most effective, both in theater and pocketbook, options.

Heck you can purchase 10-12 A10 for one F22 or F35.

And they require massively less logistics to maintain and keep full supplied in field, along with the ability to deploy form less than optimal forward outposts.

And that's not even touching it's effectiveness IN Theater.

Yes supposedly the idea is the F35 can handle the role of several planes... but just how well has that really turned out?

Exactly. And if modern war has shown us anything since Clauswitz, its that you gotta be prepared. The battlefield shifts constantly, and force multipliers change at a moments notice. You have to equip your troops with a vast array of options. Options are life.

Make sure you remember your Jomini and keep your rear area clear so you can use these options, and youre good. You dont have to pigeon hole yourself with having one thing trying to be many things, when you can simply have...many things.

Alexander MacTaggart, on 20 October 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

I love how this thread isn't even about quirks anymore.

Its about damn time it was derailed...that was such a useless discussion. People hating free cake can go get bent.

[Metus regem]

KraftySOT, on 20 October 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Military industrial congressional complex.

Cant not produce this new fangled expensive thing...because then I lose votes because 1200 people making seats for the F22 lose their job when the plant closes, and im seen as weak on defense and unamerican.

I'm part of that complex... making the world a little safer, one advanced weapons system at a time!

The Fusion system developed recently actually bumps up a couple of ideas we've been working on here, finally a good enough power source, that is almost small enough...

Not American, just a Canadian, less than 150 KM from PGI

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 20 October 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

The funny thing is, most of the boots on the ground would love more AC-130 coverage, and well I can't really blame them, those beasts are fantastic! but the 105's out the side are hell on the air-frame...

They used to use a .45, that's the funny part the M1911A1, replaced by the 9mm M9, mind you NATO and all that...

NATO tries to have everyone using the same bullets, so that ammo can be swapped. That being said, the 5.56mm does what it does, and does it well. It will effectively remove three people from the engagement, one wounded, two to carry him out. The 7.62 though more effective in an urban setting, will kill one. Given my choice, .50 BMG is the way to go...

9mm and 5.56 have both been found severely lacking in "instant incapacitation", aka in removing the enemy soldiers ability to effectively end you, in return, before expiring. Hence the evolution of the 6.8spc in Afganistan, and why many SpecOPs unit have returned to various forms of the 45 over the Nato M9 9mm.

As for Spooky, while effective in theater at what it does, the nature and design is actually severely less versatile, and it's cost to maintain and airfield requirements are significantly higher than the A10.

Metus regem, on 20 October 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

I'm part of that complex... making the world a little safer, one advanced weapons system at a time!

The Fusion system developed recently actually bumps up a couple of ideas we've been working on here, finally a good enough power source, that is almost small enough...

Not American, just a Canadian, less than 150 KM from PGI

The Light Fusion Reactor thingy is a very interesting bit of tech.

But questionable pork barrel project after another have oddly...done very little to make the world a safer place I think empirical data shows, lol.