82 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Never mind the fact that a Rommel tank can cause a lot of mechs to stop and consider if it is worth attacking it.... Then we can even step it up to monsters like a Demolisher, in a city they are death incarnate....

Don't get me wrong, I know that tanks get a bad reputation in most MW games, but on the TT, they are serious threats, often more dangerous then a mech... also why they had to be nerfed so heavily...

[Koniving]

Then there's this behemoth, which I admit had a god-mode gunner (gunnery skill of "0" which is impossible in BT as the highest skill allowed is '1'.)... but this tank which only had a chance to hit anything after being rendered immobile, still destroyed or disabled 8 mechs.

Atlas, and 7 Enforcers before being destroyed. The Commando on its side was obliterated without hitting anything.

And that only happened because the last guy was behind the tank and destroyed the turret's ability to pivot... nothing left to be done since we were locked to our vehicles.
(This 100 ton tank has more armor stock than a 100 ton mech can possibly carry.)

Edited by Koniving, 09 February 2018 - 08:44 AM.

[Metus regem]

It's pretty funny Kon, In my list of great city fighting units, tanks take up the first five spots in the top 10...

1) Devastator II (Deomlisher variant with twin HGR's)
2) Demolisher II
3) Demolisher
4) SRM carrier
5) Ontos
6) Annhilator
7) Hunchabck IIC
8) Hunchback
9) CN-9AH
10) Urbanmech 60L

[Koniving]

For me, that list includes Wolverine, Battlemaster, Scorpion (the mech, specifically some of my "predecessor" two pilot variants built with all the rules, as dropping sensor buoys to help with mech mortar aiming does some great wonders), and a Rifle Carrier.

>.>
What? I like Rifles.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 09 February 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

For me, that list includes Wolverine, Battlemaster, Scorpion (the mech, specifically some of my "predecessor" two pilot variants built with all the rules, as dropping sensor buoys to help with mech mortar aiming does some great wonders), and a Rifle Carrier.

>.>
What? I like Rifles.

Nothing wrong with that...

I've just been on the wrong end of the units I've listed a few times to not respect their city fighting ability....

That Devastator II is a real killer with the twin iHGR's in a city, taking 22 points to one location is a lot in TT and that Devastator II could put upto 44 into one location... not many mechs can take a hit like that... hell a lot of them start to feel the pain at just 22 to one location... 44 would rip the leg off of a Nova (32 points armour and structure combined) and do significant damage to the ST as well... Hell even a Timber Wolf would be feeling the pain, as there are only a few spots on that mech that the armour wouldn't be breached by just one of those 22 point slugs... And the mighty Dire Wolf would feel it as well...

[Koniving]

In my case, a combined team of a Battlemaster and a Shadowhawk came together to meet "Koolaid Man" Dire Wolf (so named because I was undetected by Lordred's forces in my Dire Wolf which he just mentioned made him nervous, and so I burst through a building and stopped in a hex right next to his Battlemaster to say high with all the weapons.) The Battlemaster tanked the brunt of the damage and apparently bursting through the building in addition to going full throttle to make it there in a single move made me pretty inaccurate. In the same turn the Shadowhawk by way of jumpjetting over, alongside the Battlemaster, both gave a kick to the same leg of my Dire Wolf. The result as can be seen in "King Crab versus Dire Wolf and other Tabletop Battles" on the MWO forums, is between the two of them their twin kicks destroyed my Right Hip, Right Upper, Right Lower leg and Right Foot Actuators. It then spends over a minute alternating between one arm or the other in order to hold suspend it up from the hull down/prone position in order to fire one arm's weapons or the other arm's weapons... but to little avail. After almost two minutes of shooting and kicking the pilot finally dies. They then did the exact same thing to my Kit Fox, after I burst that one through a building much farther away to blast at them... That, too, is in that forum thread. It was brutal..

Wolverines as I have learned, like a Centurion CN9-AL (in both cases due to exceptionally high armor).. can be absolutely brutal in melee slug fests, especially if the pilot has any AToW melee-related skills. Nothing says "Oh ****" like a flurry of 3 mech punches or two mech kicks in a single 10 second cycle.

Edited by Koniving, 09 February 2018 - 09:35 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Speaking of tanks vs mechs it's important that you get the roles right.
Take the ShadowHawk, Warrior and Vedette from the MW5 video.

In the ideal scenario the SHD fighting the Vendi in Hull down position with his AC5 will take a whole day.
SHD need to dodge the incoming ac5 fire while his shots can't penetrate frontal armor.
The Vendette however is vulnerable to the SRM from SHD or Warrior.

The fast Warrior need to fear the Martel MLAS so he stays at range and take opportunity shots of his pom pom.
3 round shots 57mm you need a tight grouping to deal damage. While using decoys to evade the SAM LRMs.

When you bring other 55ts like Griffin or Wolverine they will behave different. Wolverine is a tank hunter, Griffin a MechKiller and so on.
Would be fascinating game of opportunity to fence with any combat vehicle against another one

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 09 February 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

Speaking of tanks vs mechs it's important that you get the roles right.
Take the ShadowHawk, Warrior and Vedette from the MW5 video.

In the ideal scenario the SHD fighting the Vendi in Hull down position with his AC5 will take a whole day.
SHD need to dodge the incoming ac5 fire while his shots can't penetrate frontal armor.
The Vendette however is vulnerable to the SRM from SHD or Warrior.

The fast Warrior need to fear the Martel MLAS so he stays at range and take opportunity shots of his pom pom.
3 round shots 57mm you need a tight grouping to deal damage. While using decoys to evade the SAM LRMs.

When you bring other 55ts like Griffin or Wolverine they will behave different. Wolverine is a tank hunter, Griffin a MechKiller and so on.
Would be fascinating game of opportunity to fence with any combat vehicle against another one

Funny story, when playing the MW5 demo at MechCon the Warrior attack choppers tried to evade LRM's that were fired at them, often going full throttle away from them... this caused a glitch in the AI self preservation protocols that could have them crash into walls or buildings.... One of the guys that was in the Demo lab with me, used this tactic to take out his target that was in a building by making the Warrior choppers kill it for him.

[Karl Streiger]

Metus regem, on 09 February 2018 - 10:52 AM, said:

Funny story, when playing the MW5 demo at MechCon the Warrior attack choppers tried to evade LRM's that were fired at them, often going full throttle away from them... this caused a glitch in the AI self preservation protocols that could have them crash into walls or buildings.... One of the guys that was in the Demo lab with me, used this tactic to take out his target that was in a building by making the Warrior choppers kill it for him.

Well I'm genuinely surprised that he actively tried to evade the LRMs.
However in Konivings example the chopper would be piloted by guys like you I don't think you would run into a building, or that you even would allow the SHD to get a lock.

Speaking of the SHD again, I really love the concept of that folding gun. I really would have such "knowledge" traits that would allow you to maximize your effect on the target. Lets predict we use "my" SHD model with 3 rounds and 3 shots read (so 9 rounds) - after those 9 rounds are gone the ac need to fold back - and another 3 magazines have to be loaded into the gun. (with minimal movement on the Mechs part)
This would give a Vendette enough time to stop moving line up that perfect shot that goes through the faceplate.

The wolverine with a smaller caliber gun and 20 shots in a magazine might need to reload its gun like a assault rifle - maybe much faster and on the move. But those clips are exposed.

So a high detailed BT game would be absolutely outstanding. I wonder what would be the absolute minimum on vehicles to make it work.

[Metus regem]

Karl Streiger, on 12 February 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

Well I'm genuinely surprised that he actively tried to evade the LRMs.
However in Konivings example the chopper would be piloted by guys like you I don't think you would run into a building, or that you even would allow the SHD to get a lock.

Speaking of the SHD again, I really love the concept of that folding gun. I really would have such "knowledge" traits that would allow you to maximize your effect on the target. Lets predict we use "my" SHD model with 3 rounds and 3 shots read (so 9 rounds) - after those 9 rounds are gone the ac need to fold back - and another 3 magazines have to be loaded into the gun. (with minimal movement on the Mechs part)
This would give a Vendette enough time to stop moving line up that perfect shot that goes through the faceplate.

The wolverine with a smaller caliber gun and 20 shots in a magazine might need to reload its gun like a assault rifle - maybe much faster and on the move. But those clips are exposed.

So a high detailed BT game would be absolutely outstanding. I wonder what would be the absolute minimum on vehicles to make it work.

If it had been me in that Warrior, I would have been sticking to max range with the AC/2 plinking away, while trying to present a minimal target profile, while using the terrain to mask my movements.... then again with someone like me at the controls, it make that VTOL a serious threat to a 55t Shadowhawk.....

[Koniving]

I haven't had a chance to read the latest stuff here and I will when I can. But I had an idea a couple of days back and I wanna get it down while I still can.

Given the thread, I don't really need to say it. Imagine a real time Battletech simulation on mech/vehicle level with infantry (player or AI controlled).

Now in such a simulation, simple mechanics like this...

....won't fly. Turning like that just should never happen, it is abysmal. But whether moving slowly or fast, that is how we turn.


Here's an example of turning while running + collision. Note the damaging of Asphalt, which was later removed for years and may or may not be in now alongside knockover trees (which the original RC had exactly one light pole that could be knocked over so this isn't a miracle of invention, it took them this long to get around to it; it was legendary as in many forum topics were made to figure out exactly where it is and the race to get to it first).

Now what if turning actually felt like it meant something? In vehicle physics, realistic or otherwise, when you go to turn something top-heavy too fast in Grand Theft Auto it can flip. Same with many other games including Arma 2 and 3. Battletech has something similar, a pilot check for sharp turns on terrain that doesn't give a good grip such as concrete, asphalt, large fortification walls and rooftops are just some examples.

If you take the turn too sharp while going too fast, you need to do a piloting skill check to see if you basically flip over like this SUV.

How do we capture this without RNG in a simulation?

Turn Stress! (working title. ®).
With your basic turn the mech may lean slightly into it as necessary based on the shift of velocity from going straight at X speed to turning at X-y speed and then the final velocity with X-speed restored. Sometimes Y will be zero, resulting in no speed loss such as with slow speeds and modest turns.

Expanding on that.. Sharper turns are likely to cut speed, and when going high speed the mech may need to plant a foot or both in order to faciliate sufficient Y to shift direction sharply enough, otherwise the attempt may result in an unintended barrel roll.

Thus, Turn Stress® would be a threshold of turning power in which sufficient Y cannot be achieved to reduce the X in order to facilitate the turn attempted.. Stay within that threshold and you're fine, push it into the yellow zone and you're likely to trigger some neat animations which will also kinda screw with your intended movements but without toppling you over.. and once in the red, you flip.

The maximum potential stress would vary depending on the surface, much like the degree to which one needs to be careful with sharp high speed turns in different terrain types in Battletech. Asphalt, concrete, and structural surfaces would provide the least bit of traction giving sharp high speed turns that kind of Locust-like slip...

I can imagine, to some degree, loose sand might also prove to be a bit of an issue (need to do some research there). Much like sludge-like terrain such as thick mud in torrential rains, deep swampland, etc. would actually make high speed travel very difficult to accomplish.

When we factor that the different and vehicles excell in different terrains, so too should mechs.
Wheeled vehicles perform best on roads, have turning arcs that require forward or reverse movement to achieve and can do small turns pretty quickly but big turns at high speed could probably lead to flipping.
Tracked vehicles aren't quite as fast but have a lot of power behind them, allowing them to traverse rougher and otherwise inhospitable terrain rife with fallen trees and hefty obstacles.
Hovercraft linger above the terrain and can float even above water. The exact mechanics of BT's version aren't fresh in my head, but I know that real hovercraft have issues with sharp turns, funny enough. They are capable of turning 180 degrees or more while still going in a single direction as they have the hardest time shifting their momentum (due to the lack of producing sufficient friction on the surface). I could see a lot of 'glide and shoot' tactics there, along with issues such as slamming into structures, gliding right off of cliffs, etc.

Sometime in the near future I will attempt to provide some visuals using a humanoid 3D model.
It is my hope that the addition of something like this may help really emphasize the sensation of weight and power behind these machines and make them especially satisfying as well as challenging to pilot.

In my head I already envisioned a cinematic-like demonstration, in which two Jenners are chasing a Locust. The Locust has superior speed though it needs to watch its turns. The Jenner closer in pursuit, does, as well. The other Jenner makes for some shortcuts, preferring to jump over structures than to entertain an impromptu obstacle course of risky sharp turns at high speed. Similarly to turn stress, the Jenner runs, powers the jets, makes a quick brace and pushes off with its feet to help get a real 'umph' out of the jump when the jumpjets kick into afterburner mode. Toward the end a secondary series of maneuvering jets attempt to slow down the forward momentum as the legs shift forward and brace for a rough impact. Then like that the pilot shifts the throttle again and resumes pursuit with a bit of a head start. In one of several jumps, a friendly unit to the Locust has braced at a large hill to provide some fire support, shooting the leg off of the jumping Jenner in mid air. That Jenner botches the landing between the shift in momentum from the weapons fire, loss of limb, and the jumpjets still burning which leads to a deadly tumble ripping limbs off of the mech. Pilot abandoning it as the remaining Jenner continues pursuit of the Locust.

Edited by Koniving, 18 February 2018 - 01:12 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

I wonder if the twistable torso of a Mech is a handicap when performing sharp turns.

Take the ostrich as example for "avoid mechs" like the Locust

there you have some turns - its hard to measure it (speed and radius) but much better compared to a car at that speed.

the hooves of that locust are also adaptable for maximum friction on turns.
Wasp and Stinger with humanoid legs might have more issues with sharp turns.

[Koniving]

(i know, I still gotta put up the images for what I had suggested and read up on the thread to catch up but I wanted to get this out there really quick.

Tidbit 1 that I just learned. The US Army believes that it can update the computer cabling from the traditional cabling to fiberoptics on its existing Abrams tanks and that the result would lighten these tanks by as much as two tons. This I think is important because many often assume that Battletech targeting computers, which weigh many tons, are giant room-sized computers (not that's not a jab at you, Karl, that's actually a common assumption, seen Wikipedia's entry on Battletech as written in part by PHT?) But the Computer Cabling Alone in an M1A2 Abrams is estimated by the US Army to weigh more than 2 tons. and that replacing this in their tanks with fiber optic cables instead would reduce the weight by 2 tons... should tell us something pretty significant. Source. Slightly Close to 20 minutes in. (These videos are made by a former British tank engineer.)

Tidbit 2: The Russian BTR-80 APC is 15 tons and armed with a 30mm AC, and approximately half a meter longer than a Locust is tall. Battletech's Wheeled APCs are 10 tons, generally slower, and carry machine guns as the most comparable weapon system (much to my disappointment). But if we assume that most APCs are roughly generic as Battletech does, then perhaps one can make the assumption that 15 tons in the real world = 10 tons as Battletech's equivalent?


Tidbit 3: Perhaps Battletech tanks should be depicted with rubber-link tracks instead of metal tracks.

Rubber tracks have a lot of merits, though the best of what I can see is the segmented rubber (rubber link?) tracks.

(Working on the images for the turn stress system now.)

[Koniving]

(Side note: Mech Factory lists the general APC variants of wheeled, tracked, and hover and they're all 10 tons. MegaMek lists numerous specific models which range from 10 to a maximum of 40 which include Light AC/5s on 20 tonners, and... what the hell is a VSP laser? Sadly no AC/2-carrying APCs and not a single Rifle-using APC. So among other things, I'm gonna make a 15 ton AC/2 lugging APC and some tracked Rifle versions for fun. Would use a Light AC/2 but I intend to use this pre-3050 and too many other lore aficionados out there that would point it out. Come to think about it... just imagine a Rifle carrier.. I know. I'm crazy.)

Additional note: Maximus was actually a Canadian tank engineer. (Not British. That's my mistake.)

[Koniving]

Okay, a minor hiccup in my plans to use some of my old humanoid 3D models (specifically my FF7 mod cast or as I particularly intended, Yuffie Kisaragi) has hit a snag... I can't find the external hard drive I stored the old 2006 models on... Which sucks they're fully rigged skeletons.

Ah well.

This video which I saw the other day makes a fair substitute for turn stress.

Two minutes in you start seeing numerous sharp turns in which the cheetah angles, skids but doesn't roll or fall.

In the post somewhere above for the Turn Stress® concept, I actually intended to include the image with the short story about a Locust pilot that failed (intentionally or accidentally) to make a turn, resulting in a skid into a building and a rather....confusing..? ...escape.

So here that is. The image is of course completely bonkers (just a slightly angled and in no way scaled) image slapped on top of other art in perhaps one of the laziest 1980s photoshops I had ever seen. The short story though is somewhat comical. (But who says "X are the weirdest"?)

[Koniving]

Karl Streiger, on 12 February 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

Well I'm genuinely surprised that he actively tried to evade the LRMs.
However in Konivings example the chopper would be piloted by guys like you I don't think you would run into a building, or that you even would allow the SHD to get a lock.

Speaking of the SHD again, I really love the concept of that folding gun. I really would have such "knowledge" traits that would allow you to maximize your effect on the target. Lets predict we use "my" SHD model with 3 rounds and 3 shots read (so 9 rounds) - after those 9 rounds are gone the ac need to fold back - and another 3 magazines have to be loaded into the gun. (with minimal movement on the Mechs part)
This would give a Vendette enough time to stop moving line up that perfect shot that goes through the faceplate.

The wolverine with a smaller caliber gun and 20 shots in a magazine might need to reload its gun like a assault rifle - maybe much faster and on the move. But those clips are exposed.

So a high detailed BT game would be absolutely outstanding. I wonder what would be the absolute minimum on vehicles to make it work.

Am working on catching up on old posts. On lunch at work but short shift today so will be on around midnight my time too.

The art of the folding gun, whether it folded or just retracted behind the shoulder, was always awesome. Two games with this concept in action include armored core and front mission 2. FmFm's especially a treat as the bazooka and rifle are single hand unlike later games but in one case it folds out from the hand to create a stock. In the other it comes from the shoulder and drops a super Nintendo super scope style hand grip after unfolding. This plus the awesome visual representation of combat with free roaming AI fighters in 3d represented sections to show real time representative damage and evasion... Kinda with bt PC did this.

Since I am big into weapon variants I would be sure to include Karl's gun in one of the animations I am working on.

Will link a video later with it.

Will have to catch up on the rest later.

[Karl Streiger]

When I find enough time to finish the model i will gladly provide it to you. (this week we moved into our new house and between dozens of boxes dissambled furniture and two children there is no room or time)

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Karl Streiger, on 19 February 2018 - 11:37 PM, said:

I wonder if the twistable torso of a Mech is a handicap when performing sharp turns.

Take the ostrich as example for "avoid mechs" like the Locust

there you have some turns - its hard to measure it (speed and radius) but much better compared to a car at that speed.

the hooves of that locust are also adaptable for maximum friction on turns.
Wasp and Stinger with humanoid legs might have more issues with sharp turns.

by this video good seeing thats the Ostrich use his short wings as >Balancing Element for Turns...in MWO we have no Balancing or Run animations or really good dynamic Animations ...seeing the Hip-swung or the Stable Position of the Arms by each Speed from mechs

[Koniving]

Sigh. I'm so frustrated. Had this big thing and when I tried to backspace a typo, it went "back" on my browser and bringing it forward again left me with a blank text box. This post is in response to Metus and Karl's exchange about helicopters and MW5 compared to this hypothetical Battletech sim.

I had some videos of helicopter flying (good and bad, mostly bad as a joke) done by me in various games.. Explained why I probably wouldn't have Aerospace fighters or conventional jets as playable elements for ground based combat (not opposed to their use in space... though that kinda precludes conventional jets) as the amount of sacrifices made to make jets "fair" and "Fun" in Battlefield basically culminated to slowing them down drastically. Aerotech turns are 2 minutes long, so turning around for a strafing run and making a single series of attacks along that run is 2 minutes for the actual run assuming you don't have to take another turn/round in order to make the initial U-turn in the first place. So making the jets/aerospace fighters slow enough to be playable and fair to fight back against with their significantly increased frequency of attacks due to that slower nature... well that'd suck as well as break the lore. So I would stick to them being used for strikes and controlled by AI at the request of ground forces, keeping them true to purpose.

Would still allow them to be detected before they arrive and for players to attempt to shoot them down. Anti-Air units would get the earliest warnings as well as a direction. Non-air oriented units would get a warning a bit later just before they make their appearance, with or without a direction. This way anti-air players would have the advanced warning and inclination to behave as anti-air that is tracking the skies, while other players would only react as it happens.

Some of the videos I originally had up when I first did the post...
Helicopter versus infantry with building damage.
That brief helicopter ride on DayZ - Note ideally I'd want maps to be this size...
This is so "realistic"
Split screen two players on Scout helicopter
A Little Bird Mishap

Helicopters and VTOL craft that isn't too fast I'd totally have under player control. On the subject that the videos would have brought up, as far as multiple players on the same helicopter; if the basic player is a person with boots on the ground then yes. Otherwise if the basic player unit is a squad, the squad would take up the helicopter to fully crew it and ride shotgun, eliminating the need for a second player on the helicopter. And if the basic player unit is a vehicle, well one vehicle = one player, so again just a player on the helicopter.

Far as Shadow Hawk versus helicopter, not sure why a player-controlled chopper wouldn't just do the Richard Cameron move of flying directly above the Shadowhawk and shooting straight down with the underside gun while not allowing the SHK to even see it. This depends on the movement range of the AC/2 strapped to the belly of the chopper, of course. Shadowhawk might be able to shoot back with the original style of shoulder mounted autocannon by leaving it retracted. (which in this particular art doesn't appear to 'break apart' / fold.) But I'm not sure how to go about allowing that let alone to actually allow it. The proper response would be to use the arm weapon. However, I doubt the helicopters would be allowed to do such a thing anyway.

Anyway my post went on to talk about the Flea after poking a jab at the heights of mechs in the 1980s as shown by this image. Classic Bt seemed pretty consistent in small mech syndrome. Remember the giant head of the Atlas in 3025's TRO? There was a reason for it despite its exceptional size as a 13+ meter assault mech.
(We have lights in MWO that are 13+ meters...)
That Warhammer is like... Gundam 08th MS team / Patlabor sized. (Sending the post now so I don't lose it again before I finish up)
Actually by building and pilot scale at the end of the 08th ms clip, the RX-79 (the main character's unit) is closer to Atlas sized. Toy model "scale" also seems to indicate the RX-79 is about 13 to 14 meters tall. So quite a bit taller than that Warhammer in the picture.

Speaking of Patlabor, here's a clip that Juodas might like, though its presence is kinda slim... and these Labors are all taken out by a tank....quite shamefully I might add.

Code Geass and its derivative works have "Knightmare Frames", which provide a rear canopy/escape pod design, allowing for somewhat more compact units that still come out to about patlabor size but with a lot more umph to their strength and agility. Strange how fitting that voice over is... (The ultra-thin artstyle of characters bugs the crap out of me though).

But returning to other stuff...

My original post (before it was lost) also dived into the Flea 14 in tribute to the Fleas we're getting.
Sarna says it had a single production run, however BattleTechnology has a 5-page dedication to the Flea, including two TRO-style pages with the first containing lore (that bleeds into the second page), loadout information.. diagram of the jumpjet system and finally blueprints.

The Flea-14 had a hero. MechWarrior Alvira MacNeil, with the quote "Why walk when you can glide-jump?" Her famous trait: Creating and later improving the 'jump glide' technique, allowing her Flea 14 to jump much longer distances than ver thought possible. (Basically add + 4 hexes on her jump distances, which the Flea 14 already gets 8 hexes with no additional height benefits).

The fact that it even gets 8 hexes is peculiar since it only has 4 jumpjets, meaning the range of jump should be 120 meters forward and 4*6+6 = 30 meters maximum height.
Flea 14 actually gets 8 jump movement, though, meaning it gets 240 meters forward and 8*6+6 = 54 meters maximum height. This is because the Flea 14 inherently has the ability to jump without jumpjets and the two combine to make the epic leaps.
But.. This means that the MechWarrior Alvira MacNeil manages to push this thing into going 360 meters forward from ground level though it still has a maximum height of 54 meters.

That's pretty damn wild for only 2 tons of jumpjets and four critical slots.
Special note: Maximum height can only be achieved at the sacrifice of forward momentum. Basically you gotta prioritize going up or forward. "Level" height on BT is 6 meters. All mechs get 12 meters on their initial jump even with 1 jumpjet, but each jumpjet after is only adding 6 meters to maximum possible height. This sort of implies that all mechs have some jumping capability or at least an initial 'kick off' before leaping into the air. However the Flea 14 gets 4 jumpjets worth of jumping ability before even kicking in the jumpjets..

Also interesting is the fact that crit slots do not necessarily translate to location. Slots go into the legs for jumpjets, but the diagram shows the entire jump system is in the extended pelvis. Which reminds me the way I worded it before kinda emphasized how awkward that was to say when timed together with Alvira's amazing ability and ultimate fate.

MechWarrior Alvirah MacNeil died after following through with a bet that she could climb Mt Selinas with her Flea 14. She made it to 7,000 feet or 2133.6 meters up when she lost control of the mech. Doesn't say exactly how. The 'Mech then tumbled down the entire distance. She had severe internal injuries and died 6 days later.

On that bleak note, I find it somewhat comedic to think her final words were "******* rocks..." However I doubt she was in any condition to give final words.

Beyond this, the book gives two different explanations for how the jump is done. The long one basically says research went into making it be able to physically jump on its own. The short one much later makes a single sentence reference that its ability to 'jumpjet twice as often as any other mech wasn't enough to keep it from being outclassed by its successor the Flea 15.'
So which is it? Manual jumping with jumpjet assist, or a rapid use jumpjet system?

Sorry my editing was a bit lazy.. (You will see later this is a side view of the pelvis.)



The jumping ability of the flea 14 evidently gave the Flea its name. It is also written that this is the first model of Trooper to be renamed to Flea, with all models before it still bearing the name Trooper up to Trooper 10.
Sarna.net has a Flea 4 which came from 2003's retcon called Combat Operations by FanPro, naming this as the original Flea model.
So we've spotted a retcon along the way. The Flea 4 lacks the ability to jump... so the name of "Flea" doesn't really make sense. Thus I internally refer to the Flea 4 as the Trooper 4.

Flea 14 uses a Diverse Optics Type 15 Medium Laser which is apparently designed for anti infantry and anti vehicle use. ...That might've made more sense with a medium pulse laser, but we have to keep in mind this entire thing is written before Battletech even had pulse lasers, yet still had the fluff that standard lasers either fired in 0.1 to 0.2 second "pulses" or 1 to 2 second long "beams."... and during a time when "Heavy" and "Large" lasers were synonomous instead of meaning entirely different things.

Diagram 1

The strange thing is its mounted on the RT according to the TRO-style loadout page. However on the diagram it is shown on the left arm... though on the 3d model it is on the right arm. I deduced during the original post however that the diagram which shows left rear and left front is errorneously labeled for several reasons. One the laser placement, two the difference in shape of the arm from the "left front" and "left rear" perspectives. The fact that there are "viewports" on the rear perspective.. and an escape hatch on the front perspective... If you consider the entire thing to be a frontal perspective the layout makes a lot more sense.

As for why the laser isn't CT mounted? Well ultimately it seems the reason for that is a design choice; the CT mount for a turret on other Fleas is actually used as the primary hatch. It opens like a jaw and likely closes by pushing a button once inside.

It had a limited 5,000 mech production run before the Flea 15 was designed. Of which 200+ exists in September 3029 (the date of the in-universe magazine's publishing). Flea 14s were known to have a sub-variant with a pair of machine guns. Exactly how this 1.5 tonnage is achieved is not explained. Of interesting note: The Diverse Optics Type 15 medium laser is apparently not good at actually dealing with infantry. Though no official variants of the Flea 14 exist, it goes on to list that the Flea 15 has 3 main sub variants. The Flea 14 has several unofficial sub-variants, though they basically reduce or remove jumpjets for additional weapons and/or up to another ton of armor. (Interesting that it limits the additional armor to one ton....)

What's really strange is the Fleas are written as Marik designs. However in the first and second succession wars... 80% of the 300+ fleas lost within a specific two month campaign were Davion and Kurita Fleas (what the heck?) known as the Battle of Pohlan (....Poland, anyone? I think its funny that's roughly the number of aircraft Poland lost to the German invasion, with the exact number being 398.) In the very next two paragraphs, MWO's "Squirrel!?" tactic is used to lure defenders away from their positions so that heavier units can kill them. Also of interest is that they were "pirate" Fleas. Arrr.

Now you're gonna hear what's even more interesting than that....
Lets take a look at the side diagram.
The Flea-14 is, effectively, an APC on two legs. It can haul infantry or battle armor on the back end of its overly long behind. This does NOT look like a comfortable ride, especially when you consider the speeds of this mech. There's no indication if the mech moves smoothly or jostles, but even the Scorpion jostles like a raging bull when moving 97 kph and it has four legs... so imagine this thing cruising at 92.3 kph or the maximum combat speed of 145.9 kph (and the typical method of finding sprint of taking walk MP * 21.6 kph leads to 194.4 kph. But if we reverse walk kph to get an exact hex and then calculate sprint, we get 184.6 kph for the Flea 14's real sprint speed.)

This thing is incredibly fast with the sprint speed bringing it up to 114 miles per hour, with combat speed at 90.66 mph (rounded up) and walking speed at 57.35 (rounded down) miles per hour. Now imagine that you have either a platform to stand on or some side mounted handholds... with or without straps to tie you down....and riding shotgun on this thing. Its no wonder there's no mention of infantry providing fire support while RIDING this thing...

...Even though, apparently, Battletech actually has rules for infantry using Whales as combat submarines with torpedo launchers.
....I read that one and was like "What the ****?" And people thought it was nonsense for Star Citizen to make a tank given how focused the game is on space, planets, and exploration. What about torpedo-lobbing Shamu!?

How the hell did they even get Orcas (and yes it specifically names Orcas, aka killer whales, as the example) onto other planets?
....Why did they?

....Imagine how much fun that could be...

Anyway, it took me over four hours to recover this much of the old post by rewriting.

Edited by Koniving, 03 March 2018 - 05:52 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Oh I came late to the party.

Question 1 game based more on the human element.

I'd love it if done well, it would be a case of have my money now with the following format.

High quality graphics, with a lot of options in look for you character, and name.

I can't stand games where your locked into a character, from day one of gaming, I have never enjoyed this, and I have repeatedly tried, my latest attempts have been witcher and the lara croft celebration.

I played one session of each because I really can't stand being forced to play a generated Character.

It's a solo or co-op game no PvP F.P.S

There are missions that require piloting your mech.

I would still be buzzing if it was a linear story channelling us, from start to finish but a sand box style with side mission you could take before the core set, would be best.

Question 2

All of your suggestions except faults or quirks, I would really like.

The reason for this is, that all the quirks faults I've seen are created by the clueless. Most would mean it would never get into service, as is, and the ones that are kind of realistic have happened in my opinion by sheer luck.

Your specific example would never ever reach the front line in it's condition, it would have been found in testing and replaced or disabled, and I speak from a position of having been in weapons development, I know what the tolerances are like in the trade, and while quality has declined since I left, it would never degrade to the state the Dabuko would see service, with so obvious a fault.

Question 3

Is a kind of all in one answer, because it points to how much do you want to make this game feel more like science than fiction.

Beam lasers are extremely unrealistic in this game they would either be set up like a pulse laser firing bursts that shot at the spped of light making them pin point like PPC

Or they could be switched on and left on until either heat overload happened, or targeting was lost, because there is a fusion plant powering them. this is the only time there should be a dot weapon.

So having them work as is, already compromises reality, and once that happens you go next best, and you have to balance the game between making weapons feel right, expanding player base, while not alienating hard core sim people.

The basic tabletop game does do a good job of making each feel different, I'd keep as is

So you look at environment, range effects, on weapons to give it a realistic feel, plus targeting, and of course.

Heat build up to give the game that feel right factor of a simulator, while making it not overly complex for a more general appeal, but still far more complex than what's been before.

This game should really be about targeting and heat management. 3025 period games turn into punch fests because targeting and heat build up require it.

Clan mechs simply don't need to. In a clan mech against an A.I if you've let yourself get into melee range your doing it badly wrong, or your vastly outnumbered.

Question 4 is easy.

You can't balance Clan and I.S at a micro level.

BPV simply doesn't work no matter how loud people shout it's benefits.

An ERPPC costing the same to fit on a light mech while costing the same as when put on a heavy mech, automatically makes it more valuable on the Heavy, even if you try and compensate by giving the core value much higher on the heavy, you still have a glaring error, because then it become more effective to have multiple lights, which then makes the ERPPC far more deadly at a tactical level.

Makes me laugh when people attack game developers that don't use a B.P.V system, because B.P.V is badly flawed in itself and they won't acknowledge their pet system is as broken as not using it.

Skill levels between players will also never be addressed, because such a system could be very easily gamed by the better players. co-op and single player games in easy,norm, high difficulty rely on varying hit chances weapon damage or swarms of enemies, all not compateble with a sim game.

Further more min maxing is the bane of good balance, even though no system this franchise as ever used is close to realistic, customisation. Even mentioning stock mechs gets the rabble into war mode, yet it's realistic.

Just because its lore or canon does not make it realistic, so anything that allows major weapon changes to the layout immediately invalidates a sim game, yet staying stock is also the best way of achieving a degree of balance



Closest you can ever get to a balance is by never letting people pilot clan mechs against an I.S run by A.I

While out of order.

Is power creep an issue in a game without PvP ? Power creep is caused by D.L.C such as more powerful mechs and weapons.

Don't want power creep, don't add PvP.


Counter play battletech/mechwarrior games have never been big on counter play.

AMS, ECM, and not putting yourself in the wrong place are the only counter plays, and the only effective one with a few exceptions ( in MWO triple AMS load outs can ruin a missileboats day )is player skill.

Even in a singleplayer/co-op this will remain the case, forcing counter play on a game that doesn't naturally have it takes away from what the franchise is about.

Sorry if my answers became less technical and detailed as I went on, but answering this made me realise it will alomost certainly never happen, people just won't fund it.

Its a niche game with low population which is sad, because it deserves more popularity, but even with more popularity, I've touched on a few reasons above why it would be sabotaged by the people that play the game.

The Majority don't want a realistic game they want a game where they can put three ERPPC's on an E.C.M Kitfox and alpha them all day.

If you know a rich person that wants to dump $10-15-20 million into this project go for it, because if you have to come to the community for funding it will just be so dilated you'll get what we have here now.

I know this is a Hypothetical ask and I may well have broken the rules by giving real reasons for it's non existence, but it's a subject I think about myself from time to time, but i've never bothered to address it until now, because even at this level there are so many variations on the questions you've put forward.