Like fans of every complex fictional universe, Battletech fans have long had to deal with aneurysm-inducing conflicts on the lore of the universe, tech of the universe, and things that made since in the rules of a TT game that don't quite mesh when those concepts are referred to in novels and seem nonsensical or impractical. Many of these issues were either left unexplained, explained minimally or received an equally illogical explanation.
So here on this forum which represents the resurgence of Mechwarrior, Battletech, and perhaps the entire Mech-Scifi genre; I propose we unite our knowledge of lore, tech, science, etc to create logical explanations for these issues. With luck and support from these forum users, BT fans, and maybe even some of the devs of the project that will save BT/MW could lend support to our cause and perhaps we could even get the powers that be of BT to accept our explanations and retcon them into canon.
I know it sounds difficult to do but if we unite in the spirit of the Star League, we can take back our home fandom! Who's with me?
0
Best fan theories to explain tech/lore discrepancies in BT/MW
Started by Riordan Lionheart, Jul 07 2012 04:28 PM
7 replies to this topic
#2
-
-
- 860 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:34 PM
Most of it is because of how old the lore actually is. C3 computers were sci-fi back when they were thought up. The wireless interlinking of targeting data between mechs on the battlefield? MADNESS!
Come 2012, the wireless interlinking of every friendly armored vehicle on the front comes standard.
Come 2012, the wireless interlinking of every friendly armored vehicle on the front comes standard.
#3
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 1,127 posts
Member
- LocationIn a leather flying cap and goggles
Posted 07 July 2012 - 05:17 PM
The game is old and the writers were terrible.
There, that explains...almost all of it really. Rather than trying to "solve" all the discrepancies using fancruft, it's better to just pay them no mind where possible.
There, that explains...almost all of it really. Rather than trying to "solve" all the discrepancies using fancruft, it's better to just pay them no mind where possible.
#4
-
-
- 656 posts
Member
- LocationUSA
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:28 PM
Riordan Lionheart, on 07 July 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:
Like fans of every complex fictional universe, Battletech fans have long had to deal with aneurysm-inducing conflicts on the lore of the universe, tech of the universe, and things that made since in the rules of a TT game that don't quite mesh when those concepts are referred to in novels and seem nonsensical or impractical. Many of these issues were either left unexplained, explained minimally or received an equally illogical explanation.
So here on this forum which represents the resurgence of Mechwarrior, Battletech, and perhaps the entire Mech-Scifi genre; I propose we unite our knowledge of lore, tech, science, etc to create logical explanations for these issues. With luck and support from these forum users, BT fans, and maybe even some of the devs of the project that will save BT/MW could lend support to our cause and perhaps we could even get the powers that be of BT to accept our explanations and retcon them into canon.
I know it sounds difficult to do but if we unite in the spirit of the Star League, we can take back our home fandom! Who's with me?
So here on this forum which represents the resurgence of Mechwarrior, Battletech, and perhaps the entire Mech-Scifi genre; I propose we unite our knowledge of lore, tech, science, etc to create logical explanations for these issues. With luck and support from these forum users, BT fans, and maybe even some of the devs of the project that will save BT/MW could lend support to our cause and perhaps we could even get the powers that be of BT to accept our explanations and retcon them into canon.
I know it sounds difficult to do but if we unite in the spirit of the Star League, we can take back our home fandom! Who's with me?
You started this thread. Why didn't you give one example of your own?
Just curious.
- "Battletech was the future of the 1980s. - s.o." is the default answer to most technical issues.
- Some authors had only a passing familiarity with the TT rules which is why some novels are only vaguely Battletech.
- Like most "science fiction" Battletech is actually more closely related to fantasy. Things work they way they do because the setting demands it.
Edited by Sychodemus, 07 July 2012 - 08:29 PM.
#5
-
-
- 202 posts
Member
Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:40 PM
I think most of the discrepancies between the tabletop game and everything that might be considered canon come down to the fact that the tabletop game is a model of reality rather than a direct representation of it. They chose a scale for the included maps that made sense to get Battlemechs relatively close to one another and then worked backward from that point.
Even in the 1980s (hell, the 1960s!) most tank and fighter jet battles were going to be over before the combatants got within visual range of each other, but that doesn't exactly make for an exciting tabletop game.
Even in the 1980s (hell, the 1960s!) most tank and fighter jet battles were going to be over before the combatants got within visual range of each other, but that doesn't exactly make for an exciting tabletop game.
#6
-
-
- The Defiant
- 114 posts
Member
Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:54 PM
I know I meant things other than the obvious issues stemming from the extremely underestimation of how far we'd technically advance in 25 years (much less a thousand).
Like a scientific reason for the different stats between a regular and erppc
My theory would be that the ER version has added magnetic focusing/containment fields that keep the particle stream confined over a greater distance which explains the increase in range. The ER version also has added capacitors that absorb the potential feedback and loose plasma that makes the ordinary PPC risky and unpredictable to fire at very close ranges explaining the ER's lack of a minimum range and that added energy absorbed along with the higher power requirements for the focusing fields that increase its range also explain the added heat generation
I know the science isn't perfect in that explanation, but it's one of the little TT things that make sense in the game but without a similar explanation, makes no sense when one tries to put it in realistic/story terms
Like a scientific reason for the different stats between a regular and erppc
My theory would be that the ER version has added magnetic focusing/containment fields that keep the particle stream confined over a greater distance which explains the increase in range. The ER version also has added capacitors that absorb the potential feedback and loose plasma that makes the ordinary PPC risky and unpredictable to fire at very close ranges explaining the ER's lack of a minimum range and that added energy absorbed along with the higher power requirements for the focusing fields that increase its range also explain the added heat generation
I know the science isn't perfect in that explanation, but it's one of the little TT things that make sense in the game but without a similar explanation, makes no sense when one tries to put it in realistic/story terms
#7
-
-
- Bad Company
- 2,417 posts
Member
- Location"This is Johnson, I'm cored"
Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:01 AM
What is all this rational discussion about? There is only one answer to all problems? Where have you guys been?
But seriously, you pack that many authors and controlling creative directors on a project with exponentially sudden growth back in the late '80's and perfection isn't what you get... just be happy with excellence instead.
But seriously, you pack that many authors and controlling creative directors on a project with exponentially sudden growth back in the late '80's and perfection isn't what you get... just be happy with excellence instead.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
