69 replies to this topic

[Ramien]

Prosperity Park, on 24 April 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

But... that one's for the cockpit cigar lighter! Yes, we Urbie pilots need a heatsink for the cigar lighter alone.; we only smoke the big ones.

But if you take out the heat sinks, you can just light your cigar anywhere after a few seconds of weapons fire.

[Sassori]

Oh heh thanks Orzorn, never really knew that as we didn't really use aerospace fighters in TT, though we /did/ use tanks and the like.

@ Vex: I will enjoy my flavor, and I will still win fights and chew bubblegum tyvm

I am still hoping they add melee combat at some point...

[wwiiogre]

yes to melee, charge and dfa are in according to the dev's, just hope punching and kicking come in as well as Axes, love me some axes. The hatchetman is nothing more than a more mobile, urbie with a big ax.

chris

[CPTAmerica]

Of course these things were purposely flawed!!!

The whole point of a true tactical and strategic game is to learn how to maximize your strengths over enemy's weaknesses while at the same time minimizing your own weaknesses (FLAWS) so that the enemy can't take advantage whenever he/she wants.

There is no such thing as a "perfect" war machine. A lot of experts point out that the US Army's M1A3 Main Battle Tank is a near perfect killing machine. It has excellent manueverability, protection, and devestatingly accurate firepower on the battlefield. I don't know of an armored crewman who wouldn't want to be in one during a fight. However, it is extremely limited in close quarters fighting of a heavily urbanized area with narrow streets and allyways. It also drinks fuel like a alcoholic on a drinking binge. It can't sustain an assault without a HUGE supply convoy following so close behind they become vulnerable.

A great warrior & commander learns how to overcome their flaws and directs the battle to protect against them while exploiting those of the enemy.

[Vexgrave Lars]

Christopher Dayson, on 24 April 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Oh heh thanks Orzorn, never really knew that as we didn't really use aerospace fighters in TT, though we /did/ use tanks and the like.

@ Vex: I will enjoy my flavor, and I will still win fights and chew bubblegum tyvm

I am still hoping they add melee combat at some point...

See ya under the reticle Chris and I can't wait for Melee either.

[wwiiogre]

You too Vex,

my first inclination was to join 1st RR, but the call of the bagpipes won yet again. Well done by the way to your group for their NGNG audience participation. Impressed. Me, nope I am recon, I will be quiet and eccm'd the whole time, but you may see a small flashy bit tagging your mech or your buddies and then realize you have to fight in the shade the rest of the battle cause the LRM rain just keeps falling.

chris

[Vexgrave Lars]

wwiiogre, on 24 April 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

You too Vex,

my first inclination was to join 1st RR, but the call of the bagpipes won yet again. Well done by the way to your group for their NGNG audience participation. Impressed. Me, nope I am recon, I will be quiet and eccm'd the whole time, but you may see a small flashy bit tagging your mech or your buddies and then realize you have to fight in the shade the rest of the battle cause the LRM rain just keeps falling.

chris

Recon, we're always to busy saving ***** to be impressed.

[Felicitatem Parco]

CPTAmerica, on 24 April 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

There is no such thing as a "perfect" war machine. A lot of experts point out that the US Army's M1A3 Main Battle Tank is a near perfect killing machine. It has excellent manueverability, protection, and devestatingly accurate firepower on the battlefield. I don't know of an armored crewman who wouldn't want to be in one during a fight. However, it is extremely limited in close quarters fighting of a heavily urbanized area with narrow streets and allyways. It also drinks fuel like a alcoholic on a drinking binge. It can't sustain an assault without a HUGE supply convoy following so close behind they become vulnerable.

You forgot that the M1A3 blows exhaust gasses that'll melt your skin off, so it's not good for infantry to use for a cover, and it has virtually no AA capacity aside from the .50 cal. Oh, also the 120mm Rheinmetall is now considered "underpowered" by the military and they are seeking replacement technologies for common 120mm cannon.

The only people who say [insert something here] is a perfect killing machine are people who are biased, exaggerating, or topically unknowledgable.

[Adridos]

CPTAmerica, on 24 April 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

A lot of experts point out that the US Army's M1A3 Main Battle Tank is a near perfect killing machine. It has excellent manueverability, protection, and devestatingly accurate firepower on the battlefield. I don't know of an armored crewman who wouldn't want to be in one during a fight.

Every English tanker, because Challengers 2 are the toughest and safest tanks to work in. They had only 1 casualty, from a friendly fire.

Most Russians prefer their tanks. They are faster and shoot at A LOT greater distance than Abrams. They also have the anti-rocket systems.

Germans, they rely on Leopard 2s for everything and for a good reason. Take T-90, add the gun and armor of Abrams and you have the Leo.


Of course all things in real life have flaws. Nothing is flawless.
If you make a thing where you are indestructible, the fastest, the strongest, etc. It would be boring as ... .

[Kudzu]

Prosperity Park, on 24 April 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

The "re-roll until you hit an occupied internal slot" rule is 100% bogus because shots are shots; if you shoot clear through someone's torso without hitting any critical componenets then you can't take that bullet back, reload it into your weapon, and shoot again. And Machinegun ammo would not explode with a large BANG like a charged capacitor, missile stocks, or large-caliber AC ammo. And how about the "fact" that large-caliber autocannon fire to shorter ranges, while smaller guns shoot farther? That is nothing but an artifact - this is a boardgame turned into a video game. Boardgames have to be fair, not realistic or optimized.

Mechwarrior's ability to be realistic and perfect is limited just as a Monopoly videogame is limited in its ability to serve as a real estate simulator. There will be rules crafted in specifically to make it balanced across all players.

This would be a great observation... if every hit to the IS caused a crit.

As it stands you already have a roll to determine if you get a crit (41.67% chance), if the answer is "Yes" then you determine what it is you actually hit-- this where the rerolling comes in at. The shooting through a torso without hitting anything vital would be covered by the 58.33% chance of getting a "No crit" result.

Some of the battletech physics oddities are for balance, like the shorter range on the big guns. But having hundreds of machine gun rounds bounce around inside of your mech like pinballs would certainly do as much damage as the big AC rounds-- if not more.

[Vexgrave Lars]

Prosperity Park, on 24 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

You forgot that the M1A3 blows exhaust gasses that'll melt your skin off, so it's not good for infantry to use for a cover, and it has virtually no AA capacity aside from the .50 cal. Oh, also the 120mm Rheinmetall is now considered "underpowered" by the military and they are seeking replacement technologies for common 120mm cannon.

The only people who say [insert something here] is a perfect killing machine are people who are biased, exaggerating, or topically unknowledgable.

No, ohh heck no.. nothing is perfect, everything is situational which is exactly my point. In the current iteration of MWO as planned at launch, reliance on non- mech warefare equipment (small lasers for instance) is foolhardy, as well as not using mech lab to strip off equipment that doesn't support the role you choose.

Adding heat, for poor range, and little damage is wasteful, Armor will serve you better in the long run.

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 24 April 2012 - 10:13 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Small lasers can have their part... if you experience drawn-out combat and wind up removing a sum total of 0.5T enemy armor over the course of a battle by the repeated use of that small laser, then you have justified its deployment.

[Gigaton]

Adridos, on 24 April 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Every English tanker, because Challengers 2 are the toughest and safest tanks to work in. They had only 1 casualty, from a friendly fire.

AFAIK, the HESH on TC's cupola incident is the only incident of Chally 2 becoming a write off due to an attack. Write off is different from casuality. I think British Army considers (I know they used to, at least) even immobilized tank to be a casuality (aka mission killed or knocked out).

But it's certainly not the only incident of Chally 2 crew getting injured or the tank getting damaged due to attack.

Prosperity Park, on 24 April 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Small lasers can have their part... if you experience drawn-out combat and wind up removing a sum total of 0.5T enemy armor over the course of a battle by the repeated use of that small laser, then you have justified its deployment.

Weapons like small laser can also have use as crit seekers, depending on how the devs implement the whole damage model. We'll see.

Edited by Gigaton, 24 April 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I would LOVE to see naked bodyparts where the armor panels have been blown off entirely.

[William Petersen]

Suskis, on 24 April 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

(this comes from a bad game mechanic: the re-rolling of empty internal slots in case of critical hits)

That's not a bad game mechanic. It (like damage transfer) is meant to eliminate 'false positive' rolls.

You have already rolled and succeeded at getting a critical hit. And then you think it logical to hit 'empty slots' or 'nothing' effectually *not* getting a critical hit when you've successfully scored one? *That* is bad game mechanics.

[Sassori]

William Petersen, on 24 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

That's not a bad game mechanic. It (like damage transfer) is meant to eliminate 'false positive' rolls.

You have already rolled and succeeded at getting a critical hit. And then you think it logical to hit 'empty slots' or 'nothing' effectually *not* getting a critical hit when you've successfully scored one? *That* is bad game mechanics.

That's kinda true. Makes me wonder if the hitbox on a mech is going to change. Say you blow off the right arm, does the hit box change to reflect that the right arm is gone? If not then damage transfer will need to be in effect. If it /does/ change (And I really hope it does) then that hit would just be a miss if the arm is gone and damage transfer is no longer needed at all.

[Pvt Dancer]

Heh... the Javelin had a built in flaw that it was 'top heavy' and thus all pilot checks were at +1.

Yeah, flaws were part of the game... every time you looked at a AC 5 and thought 'why wasn't that a PPC and a couple of additional heat sinks?'. Why I loved the 3025 books as well and why they encouraged salvage rules and customizing your mech. It gave you something to work with and plenty to change.

[AlanEsh]

Felix Dante, on 24 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

...
The Marauder had an AC 5 for two reasons IMHO...Because it overheated too much. (AC-5 only did 1 heat) and it matched the original robotech picture they based the design on. The ammo was in the torso because otherwise they would probably put it in the Center Torso (most heavily armored section) for protection, as several other 3025 mechs did. Besides, without CASE involved and the newer "Floating Crit" rule, it's a moot point. Ammo is nasty where-ever you put it....

Regarding the OP, table top rules, there is good reason to put the ammo in the CT rather than the RT on the Marauder.

When ammo is in the RT you get...
Armor penetrated. Possible Crit!
Roll for Crit. Hit!
Roll for... oh wait, the only crit slot used is the Ammo.
BOOM! Mech is dead.

When ammo is in the CT you get...
Armor penetrated. Possible Crit!
Roll for Crit. Hit!
Roll for Crit. (you have 1 in what, 7 chance of hitting the ammo?
Gyro Hit! You fall over!
But your mech isn't auto-dead.

[Volthorne]

William Petersen, on 24 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

You have already rolled and succeeded at getting a critical hit. And then you think it logical to hit 'empty slots' or 'nothing' effectually *not* getting a critical hit when you've successfully scored one? *That* is bad game mechanics.

Then I guess it's also bad game mechanics in games where you can dodge crits through RNG-rolled saves? Or even player-rolled saves? Or perhaps through a simple side-step (like dodging a crocket in TF2). These all remove the 100% hit ratio of crits. I suppose they should all be thrown out because you deserved that crit after rolling for it but not hitting anything.

[Kelthar]

MaddMaxx, on 24 April 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

One other item not mentioned was that most Mechs were designed to have to fight against enemy tech other than just other Mechs. Aerospace, Tanks, Infantry all presented differing needs to be dealt with.

Take those elements off the battlefield, and many designs seem inadequate against just other Mechs.

There is a lot of literary license in the BattleTech novels on the different mechs and their strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the standard Rifleman is hopeless heat wise and it's weapons make no real sense to me. However, according to the TROs and novels it has an excellent fire control system that tracks and engages targets, particularly aerospace fighters, etc., very well. This was never reflected in the TT game except through house rules. Most of the other 3025 mechs had similar idiosyncrasies.