126 replies to this topic

[CutterWolf]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Because you name a cannon after it's caliber and not on how much damage it does.

Once again, "Read the Battletech Master Rules" learn how and why things are called what they are in "THIS" in this game

[Future Perfect]

CutterWolf, on 01 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Once again, "Read the Battletech Master Rules" learn how and why things are called what they are in "THIS" in this game

I'm trying to bring some elements more into the realms of reality but you have your nose stuck too close to some old rulebook.

[BFalcon]

erm with all due respect, this game would not be here without "some old rulebook" - the tabletop game helped to keep the franchise alive...

Quite honestly, changing too many things will serve only to drive the die-hard fans away and leave only those fans who will stay only until the next fad game comes out.

I'm actually annoyed that the ACs don't fire multiple shots - helps to explain why they had to double the armour on the mechs - multiple rounds would have scattered more.

[Mchawkeye]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Because you name a cannon after it's caliber and not on how much damage it does.

And when I think about it the 150MM Autocannon should be 30 points of damage and not 25.

Actually, there are a number of naming conventions for cannon, the British have used shell weight in the past and the Americans of course, identify any given gun by it's equipment number (like the M198 Howitzer) or other ident (GAU-8 avenger, for example).

There are many ways to identify a gun. Calibre doesn't necessarily come in to it.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

We don't want reality, we want battletech. Battletech or GTFO.

[CutterWolf]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm trying to bring some elements more into the realms of reality but you have your nose stuck too close to some old rulebook.

OMG! Please tell me you can't be this dumb? Really please tell me. This is not some game that just pop out of no where. This game has a very long history behine it from books to board game and into the PC. Your trying to change things for the sake of change alone, not a real reason for that change. And that "old rule book" as you call it happens to be what this game is built off of so it would be who of you to look at and learn it............

[Aesaar]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm trying to bring some elements more into the realms of reality but you have your nose stuck too close to some old rulebook.

Except that AC/20 (for instance) doesn't designate an individual weapon. It designates a group of weapons that are, practically speaking, pretty much the same. The AC/20 on a Davion Hunchback and the AC/20 on a Steiner Hunchback may not be the same weapon. One might be a 150mm rapid burst weapon, the other could be a 200mm single shot. Not the same weapons, but for the purpose of weight, damage, effective range, ammo per ton, they are. In both cases, calling them "120mm autocannons" is wrong.

You still haven't explained precisely why this should change or what it would add to the game.

Oh, and insulting people just because they disagree with you is unlikely to get anyone to give you or your ideas more respect.

Edited by Aesaar, 01 July 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Chunkymonkey]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Because you name a cannon after it's caliber and not on how much damage it does.

And when I think about it the 150MM Autocannon should be 30 points of damage and not 25.

Do you see huge war machines strutting around outside?


I really hope not because thats not a good sign.

[BFalcon]

Chunkymonkey, on 01 July 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Do you see huge war machines strutting around outside?


I really hope not because thats not a good sign.

If you do, just ignore them - they're not really there and they're not going to help me take over the world in a few days... mwahahaha!!!

[Feindfeuer]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Because you name a cannon after it's caliber and not on how much damage it does.

And when I think about it the 150MM Autocannon should be 30 points of damage and not 25.

But AC/20 is not a single specific weapon, its a categorie of weapons that all share the same overall effect. To make it easier for the player, all of them share the same stat-line and can be handled with one name and one type of ammunition. Also weapon systems are named differently by different militaries depending on naming conventions used by said military. The 120mm L/44 Rheinmetall gun is used under this designation on older Leopard 2 and japanese Type 90 while the US military uses it under the designation M256 on it's Abrams and the south koreans call it the KM256 (prbly cause they got it licensed by the US). Two of those designations are missin the calibre and the lenght of the barrel in the designation.

But if you stick to calibre-naming, you should also add the barrel lenght in calibres*x=barrellenght, as that is standard for classifying guns in 'reality'. But this only leads to forcing one specific gun with one specific calibre and barrel lenght on all mechs using one type of weapon that normaly spans a big number of different guns. Now you have to check every chassis if it fits said specific gun.. which would probaly not only lead to problems of resizing specific mechs but also run against certain variants that are mentioned using guns in calibres that might not fit your specific view of how it would be 'realistic'.

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm trying to bring some elements more into the realms of reality but you have your nose stuck too close to some old rulebook.

We are fighting in magic space robots that are superior to tanks for no explainable reason, but to make them viable in the setting, cause it's cool to have giant robots beat each other up. We are not engaging over 40km range with rocket boosted 150mm projectiles, but close up with short ranged canons and lasers, cause it's cool to see the enemy get blasted to pieces.
Realism and reality is nothing that i'm realy fond of when thinking about unrealistic settings that only exist based on the rule of cool.

I can understand why you would like such a naming convention, as i'm kind of a militaristic fetishist myself. But in the Battletech setting you're just making it harder on the user, by further limiting information given by system-names and for the developer by forcing one design on every mech, which would need ot be reflected on model for realistic realism.

[Future Perfect]

Aesaar, on 01 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Except that AC/20 (for instance) doesn't designate an individual weapon. It designates a group of weapons that are, practically speaking, pretty much the same. The AC/20 on a Davion Hunchback and the AC/20 on a Steiner Hunchback may not be the same weapon. One might be a 150mm rapid burst weapon, the other could be a 200mm single shot. Not the same weapons, but for the purpose of weight, damage, effective range, ammo per ton, they are. In both cases, calling them "120mm autocannons" is wrong.

You still haven't explained precisely why this should change or what it would add to the game.

Oh, and insulting people just because they disagree with you is unlikely to get anyone to give you or your ideas more respect.

No, people can't make a constructive argument and resorts to insults, trolling and flaming.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

OK... how about this... It's organized by the the AC/XX designation, but from there in the added info it will tell you the Caliber and other tidbits about the weapon? And we like the naming convention used in Battletech becuase it's from Battletech.

[Future Perfect]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 01 July 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

OK... how about this... It's organized by the the AC/XX designation, but from there in the added info it will tell you the Caliber and other tidbits about the weapon? And we like the naming convention used in Battletech becuase it's from Battletech.

I don't care what you like, I care what I like.

[Mchawkeye]

...And we are still waiting for a decent reason why...?

[BFalcon]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I don't care what you like, I care what I like.

It shows.

[Future Perfect]

Mchawkeye, on 01 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

...And we are still waiting for a decent reason why...?

If you can't find the reason by reading then I can't help you, son.

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I don't care what you like, I care what I like.

I was trying to find some middle ground. Thanks for being "That Guy" though.

[Future Perfect]

Agent CraZy DiP, on 01 July 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I was trying to find some middle ground. Thanks for being "That Guy" though.

You must be shittin' me?!

[Mchawkeye]

Future Perfect, on 01 July 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

If you can't find the reason by reading then I can't help you, son.

I can't find the reason because so far, you have failed to qualify it to any respectable means.

And I am far and away not your son; I don't dribble when I speak and my written english, by and large, makes sense.

[Future Perfect]

Mchawkeye, on 01 July 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

I can't find the reason because so far, you have failed to qualify it to any respectable means.

And I am far and away not your son; I don't dribble when I speak and my written english, by and large, makes sense.

Why do you keep alternating between accounts anyway?