13 replies to this topic

[Seth]

I was reading over the news headline today and it meantioned the -9M Awesome. I was looking over its recordsheet so I could update its article on the MWO wiki and I was confused about something. Its record sheet shows 8 double heat sinks installed in critical locations, but the 'Mech itself carries a total of 20 double heat sinks. I thought the engine only came with 10 (single or double) heat sinks. So where are the other two? I was playing around with it in SSW and again, the first 2 heat sinks I add to the design don't show up on the list of equipment to place. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing here? Thanks.

[Cyote13]

There was a change in the rules...the total heatsinks "in" the engine are based on engine size, I am sure someone will put up the chart rather quick.

But yes in very classic BT it was 10, no mater the size of the engine

[Thorolf Kylesson]

This was covered in another thread, dude. How many heats in the engine is determined buy engine size. Its in the Techmanual.

Damn. Wiley beat me to it.

Edited by Thorolf Kylesson, 12 May 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[joshua]

Heat sinks require tonnage and critical space.
Every (fusion) engine comes with 10 free tonnage heat sinks.
Every (fusion) engine can fit (free critical space) heat sinks based on its engine rating (bigger speed on bigger mech is higher engine rating).

So it's possible on very light/slow 'mechs that the 10 free tonnage heat sinks that come with the engine to have to be placed in critical slots outside the engine, and on the other side for faster/heavier 'mechs for more than just the 10 free tonnage heat sinks to fit in the engine, but some heat sinks that you pay tonnage can possibly fit in the engine as well.

[Cyote13]

Thorolf Kylesson, on 12 May 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Damn. Wiley beat me to it.

Wile E. Coyote...supra-genius

That would be Wylie, as in the Wylie's Coyotes...a still functioning Merc unit in 3025, even if destined to get lost in the periphery for 30 years after that.....

[Kudzu]

The formula is: engine rating /25 = number of HS that don't have to be put in slots.

[Bad Syntax]

its confusing that there are 20 circles to fill in for the 20 heat sinks, but only 12 can actually be damaged. I darkened the ones that can't be damaged on my record sheets to show a difference, you can view the AWS-9M here.

[Sychodemus]

Bad_Syntax, on 16 May 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

its confusing that there are 20 circles to fill in for the 20 heat sinks, but only 12 can actually be damaged. I darkened the ones that can't be damaged on my record sheets to show a difference, you can view the AWS-9M here.

Yes, it can be. But it is just a book-keeping reference, allowing players to see how many heat sinks are still functioning, so it is serviceable. It may seem sort of redundant, but without it many new players get even more confused.

Graying out those heatsinks that can't be touched was a suggestion during the TW playtest. You can see how well that went over...

Edited by Sychodemus, 16 May 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Bad Syntax]

Well the best way would be draw a square around them, mark them as internal, but that, as well as many other record sheet decisions, I suspect were done in order to make them easier to create.

I've seen numerous references to how hard some things are in regards to creating RS. I know that 25 years ago that was 100% true, but now with computers so much better, there really is no limit at all to what you can do, and most likely pretty easily, given decent programming skills (which aren't very rare these days either).

Try to take a FrankenMech, with different weighted structures per location, with different structure types per location, with patchwork and hardened or ferro-lamellor armor, mixed tech, modular armor, split location items, freezers (Sword and Dragon), etc, and you pretty quickly end up with something that isn't very manageable with the record sheets the way they are now.

Mobile structures, buildings, and large naval support vehicles are all a bit too complex for standard RS as well.

Wish I could figure out a good solution to making new RS's. I stuck with canon as a source, but in hindsight that was probably silly, especially since once I make a single template, I can recreate all of the 2783 canon BM/IM/LAM sheets in well under an hour.

[Lysimachos]

Sorry to bump this up, but how exactly does it make sense to have a 'mech designed with a larger and more powerful engine and this same 'mech has MORE free internal space than a 'mech with similar engine?

I'm sort new to classic battletech, and I have only the Tech Manual and Total Warfare books, but I find myself while designing a custom 'mech compelled to put a larger engine on it simply to free up heatsink spaces to cram more weapons, while I think it's more logical that a slower 'mech with a smaller engine should be able to have a larger arsenal, as a trade-off for the lack of speed.

[Sychodemus]

Lysimachos, on 13 June 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Sorry to bump this up, but how exactly does it make sense to have a 'mech designed with a larger and more powerful engine and this same 'mech has MORE free internal space than a 'mech with similar engine?

I'm sort new to classic battletech, and I have only the Tech Manual and Total Warfare books, but I find myself while designing a custom 'mech compelled to put a larger engine on it simply to free up heatsink spaces to cram more weapons, while I think it's more logical that a slower 'mech with a smaller engine should be able to have a larger arsenal, as a trade-off for the lack of speed.

Sense?

It is just one of those myriad balancing mechanics. From a game design perspective it is like this: For heavier 'Mechs, you want the extra space for other equipment. But for lighter 'Mechs - which will have relatively smaller engines - you want those heat sinks to be available to soak up critical hits, rather than weapons or ammo or to avoid side-to-center torso auto-transfer. (Which is what will happen if there is nothing in the side torso. Light 'Mech internals are pretty barren without those heat sinks.)
It is an abstract concept, gradually adopted to allow for greater overall balance between the extremes and helping those extremes to be plausible.

Edited by Sychodemus, 13 June 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[Lysimachos]

I understand your point, but I think it makes the whole think LESS plausible. If you agree with me that speed, armor and armament are the three main advantages a 'mech can have, then to make a balanced construction system you would have to force trade-offs between those advantages. What happens here is that I'm forced to increase engine size and therefore speed in order to increase the amount of weaponry the 'mech can bring to bear, and that doesn't strike me as balanced at all.

[Sychodemus]

Lysimachos, on 13 June 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I understand your point, but I think it makes the whole think LESS plausible. If you agree with me that speed, armor and armament are the three main advantages a 'mech can have, then to make a balanced construction system you would have to force trade-offs between those advantages. What happens here is that I'm forced to increase engine size and therefore speed in order to increase the amount of weaponry the 'mech can bring to bear, and that doesn't strike me as balanced at all.

Heat management is a key component in BT; more firepower means more heat which requires more heat sinks to negate. The designers did not want cool-running 'Mechs to be the norm. BT doesn't have an internal mechanic such as power requirements like the real world or many other games. Instead, heat becomes the factor that the player has to deal with; they can take the risk of heat effects in return for being able to fire more weapons or they can minimize heat at the cost of weight and space. It all is really about trade-offs that make different weight classes, engines and weapons worth taking.
In BT some of the more terrifying 'Mechs run hot (really hot) and heat managment is a core skill that every player eventually has to deal with. Since the construction rules apply equally to all 'Mechs it is balanced overall. Very, very few designs are meant to be 100% heat efficient.

[Lysimachos]

Yes, but I don't think we're understanding each other. I obviously agree that minimizing heat is a serious issue, and that heatsinks take up a LOT of space and some weight, so it's a trade-off between space that could be used for other things vs. heat management, and I find this very reasonable and plausible. What I don't find reasonable or plausible is that the engine always take up the same critical space, even as it increases in size, power AND number of heatsinks. Hence, by tonnage, it's always better to get a larger engine, because it magically doesn't take up anymore space than a smaller engine, and comes with a lot of integrated heatsinks that help with heat management, but unlike normal heatsinks, they also (magically) don't take up any internal space.

So, instead of being a trade-off of internal (critical) space between engine size/power, heatsinks, weaponry and other components (like ferro-fibrous armor), it's practically always better to take a larger engine to free space up.