Just to mention it, I didn't read the whole thread... Just wanted to respond to the OP.
Quxudica, on 14 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:
If weapons and equipment had actual size requirements. I don't mean critical slots, but actual set dimensions. What if an SRM six was to big to fit in a Raven, an LRM20 to large to drop in a Stormcrow or a Gauss Rifle to big to fit in a K2? What if a PPC cannon, that is the size of a Spiders torso on a K2, couldn't just be dropped into a Spiders energy arm?
In Battletech, and similar to real life, many things can be changed out in a piece of machinery. In BT, you can change out weapons on custom rigs and the Gyro would be recalibrated to help balance the mech to the new weight specs. You also have enough structure to hold said weight on a mech (because it's created using even more advanced construction equipment than we have now). In lore, many mechs were designed, or redesigned, to fit large and heavy weapons into them. The Hollander is one such mech, which is a 30 ton mech that fits a single Gauss rifle into it's frame. The Hunchback also comes to mind. As far as PPCs, you have mechs such as the Panther, 35 ton mech. You have the Hussar, a 20 ton mech if I recall right, which had a single ERLL.
Small mechs actually could carry large weapons on a regular basis. Happens all the time in lore. (Of course, customizing a mech in lore was... not an easy or cheap job. Each change required a complete overhaul of the Gyro, if not even more. Not to mention alignment of the weapon system to the targeting computer, and on top of that ammo and/or power feeds and don't forget coolant lines....)
Quxudica, on 14 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:
What if you weren't able to jam any weapon into any chassis that had enough vaguely defined "critical slots"? How would the game play If the heaviest weapons could only be carried by the heaviest chassis, or special lighter chassis designed specifically to hoist and support a vastly over sized gun?
By all accounts, from a lore based perspective (and with my limited knowledge of such), there are technically no "hard point" limitations in BT. You can, with a standard mech, change out everything about it (with some limitations). However, it's not easy, and costs a fortune to do so. You can rip out those MGs on your K2, and replace your PPCs with AC20s if you desired. You could also, in lore, take those same chassis and place 12 MGs on it. This is provided you could place (which is crit space reasons) the weapons onto mounting points onto the frame itself.
This was, however, a very costly process. Thus, customizing mechs in the IS was a very rare sight. It took months to years to customize a single mech, and billions of c-bills. You were normally better off just buying a new mech entirely, it would be that expensive to do half the customizing we do in this game, and far more time consuming.
Quxudica, on 14 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:
What would the game be like if weapons didn't exist in a vacuum? If slotting a large laser into a chassis only worked if that chassis had the power infrastructure to support such weapon? Or slotting an AC20 only worked if the ballistic slot had the mechanics to accommodate it?
The fusion reactors produce plenty of energy for the mech for a long time. There basically was no "power limits" on a battlemech's fusion reactors (with some power spike exceptions, such as two Gauss rifles recharging at the same time). As for engine size (as I figure that question is coming next), that is just determining how much of that power can be converted to locomotion, but doesn't effect weapon power draws (which are handled within the weight of the weapons themselves). The larger the engine, the more energy that can be converted into locomotion. Fusion reactor chamber basically remains the same.
Quxudica, on 14 November 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:
How would the game play if ammunition had to be placed in logical locations, and you couldn't magically pull AC20 shells from your left foot to a gun mounted in your right arm? or siphon high explosive missiles from under your pilots seat?
Most "lore" specs placed the ammo in the torsos, as they did consider easier feeds and considerations. However, they did have ways (and even some designs that stock had ammo in legs and heads) to have longer ammo feeds to be able to draw ammo from those far off bins. For the most part, in lore and TT, ammo in the torso wasn't as big of an issue as it is n MW:O. This is mostly because of a lack of "instant perfect convergence". In TT and BT lore, shots didn't normally land in the same place too many times, and the CT was the most commonly hit place on the mech. Thus, ammo in a side torso often times was rather safe for most encounters. Here, people can aim for the side torso if they know/suspect you have ammo there.
As far as addressing ammo "under the pilots seat", I'd like to remind that there is more in the head section than just a cockpit. You have space for life support system, and there is "one crit of space" for some other gear. The actual physical space of frame one crit is, I wouldn't know. This is where game balance and physical sense probably needs to detract from each other a bit.
View Crit space as mounting space within a frame within the structure after all the internal gear needed for operation is placed. Smaller mechs require less internal gear, larger mechs more. This is why a 20 ton mech has the same "crit space" as a 100 ton mech. The "internal gears" take up enough space to leave the same number of "mounting spaces" (crit spaces) open afterwards.
Now, I wont claim to be a master of all things Battletech. I wont even claim that I have perfect statements here. Just my view on the subject. (I'm also may be miss saying some of this, not saying something exactly as I'm trying to say it, and I'm tired..)
4
