John MatriX82, on 25 January 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:
This system is somewhat more strict than my own. I'd still like the capability to slap bigger guns whenever I have enough critical slots, but at the expense of carrying other big stuff.. so in the end a Jag could end up with an AC 20, but the other arm is limited to an AC 10 or a GR or even something smaller.
Quickly thinking, in my head a JM6-DD comes with UAC5 + AC 2 = 6 crit slots, but has a third hardpoint.
Let's suppose to award to that hardpoint another critical slot for a total of 7+7 crits. The thing could go dual GR, dual AC10 (both eating up 7 crits). You can't use any further ballistic hardpoints in those arms, because you've ran out of them.
But if you want you can slap an AC20 in one arm, and the other arm could still mount an AC5 (10+4 crits) or AC20+3xAC2s (10+3 crits). This without "sizing" the hardpoints. In few words critical slots would behave dynamically like ENDO or FF crits do, moving themselves around (where there are the proper hardpoints of course).
A JM6-S would probably be more limited (no GR capability) but those side torsoes could allow dual Large Laser while the DD cannot. Dual Large laser in my system means also that you can use 1xPPC + 1 Mlas in total. It still allows to mount bigger stuff if you want but few weapons of that kind.
JM6-A would allow 15 lrms max per arm (10+5 or 15) or LRM15+SRM6 or 2xSRM6s, ballistics would be limited up to an AC5 or stay @ 1 crit (1 Mgun or AC2), side torsoes to MLs, MPLs.
i like a lot about you r idea, but find myself still holding back from fully endorsing it. I think part of the problem comes from the Jagermech example.
Let's use the DD. As you state, 7 crits per arm for ballistics. All good. My issue (and it's more because I am OCD) is now, an arm designed around 2-3 light ballistics, could conceivably be made to hold a weapon far larger than designed for, because the crits would migrate. I am fine with the DD mounting a Gauss in the arm, because it has 7 ballistic crits. I am not really fine with it being able to "borrow" crits from another location to be able to fit an AC20 there though, or a gauss and an AC5, or Gauss and 2 ac2. The one arm becoming reinforced and more spacious to accommodate, whilst the other essentially atrophies just bothers me. It also still allows for a mech like say the hunchback to take 3 small mounting points for energy, and suddenly have one spot reinforced enough for a PPC using all 3 slots, while the structural points for the other 2 lasers disappear.
I know it's silly to overthink IRL engineering on a game full of space magic, but while I like the concept, that also makes me dislike it. I guess to my mind a structural mount meant for a single 1 ton medium laser, or .5 ton MG getting buffed to hold a 5-7 ton Large Laser or PPC, or the like is... off.
I like the thought of each mech maybe having so many of said crit slot in each location though, so for instance on a Stalker,( 2 large laser, 4 medium, for 4 crits per torso) , you could still mount 2 large per toros, or a large and 2 mediums, or a PPC and 1 medium, etc. But I dislike the LT borrowing an energy crit form the RT so now said stalker can pack 2 ppc in one torso, and one large in the other still. It's semantics, I know. I guess I am ok with a Jenner being able to use the 2 energy it has in the arm to mount a large laser, but not so much into it borrowing one to mount a PPC in one arm. (Plus this would give a mech like the Jenner F a new lease, as the only Jenner capable of mounting a ppc, which would distinguish it and possible compensate more for the lack of missile)
Perhaps a better example might be the HBK 4P. 6 mediums in the rt, 1 each in the head and each arm. 9 total. With your migration, it's no issue for instance, to make it a 3 PPC mech, with a ppc in each arm, and one in the rt. I dislike that for many reasons. One, because the arms were never engineered for that, and a swap between a 1 ton and a 7 ton weapon is pretty extreme, even down to returning a gyro for the weight redistribution (something I know TT never thought about either), but also because it changes the nature of the mech too drastically IMO. Now if you used the basic concept of your crits as a sizing method, but did not allow migration, you could still use 2 PPC, though only in the RT (coincidentally for the same 14 tons the rt was engineered around) and then spread mediums or smalls in the other locations. This would further distinguish the 4SP, as being the only HBK able to carry large lasers in it's arms. Thus giving even more reason to use the various variants for differing roles.
IDK, your idea is still better than what we have, but I think it is still a little too easy to take a mech totally outside the role it was conceived for. That is why I still tend to favor sized hardpoints. It has the same elegance in simplicity your proposal has, with less chance for abuse. I like the thought of your basic idea with the crits fixed to their locales more, but IDK if it would be too convoluted or "limiting" for people. Although listening to the cries for unlimited customization makes me think that most who feel that way realistically have no clue of which they speak anyhow.
111
