Author Topic: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11  (Read 16995 times)

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12120
  • We're back, baby!
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #30 on: 16 September 2011, 03:20:54 »
I dunno, combining a Quad's lateral shift with a vehicle's ability to get better movement due to suspension factor adds a certian something to manouvrability options.
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

verybad

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #31 on: 16 September 2011, 03:26:29 »
Has to be a wheeled or hover unit for suspension factor... I can't see a hover unit working in a mechs feet. You simply need more ground cover, either that or their essentially jumpjets.

Wheeled...Sorry, but it's just lame. I get Transformers images running though my head.
Let Miley lick the hammers!

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #32 on: 16 September 2011, 04:07:45 »
Time will tell whether these "QuadVees" are functionally any different from plain old quad 'Mechs with tracks that we can already build using nothing more exotic than the TechManual...

tapdancingbeavers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 265
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #33 on: 16 September 2011, 04:10:24 »
Quote
How do you NOT get from multilegged tank to rollerblading quadmech? It's an obvious comparison.

Do you get from quad-mechs to babies crawling or images of joggers from mechs because to me the comparison is the same.  You can make anything look stupid by invoking ridiculous parallels.  I've seen some awesome looking tracked, hover and wheel "mechs" (both humanoid and quad-like) from computer games and even just artwork on the internet so i don't see the problem except for it being new and thus bad.

Quote
ie Can't do the job of either unit type as well. It's born to be mediocre.

It's also called flexible or well-rounded which can actually be better than specialised depending on the situation you only have to look at real militaries to find examples of this.

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12120
  • We're back, baby!
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #34 on: 16 September 2011, 04:15:43 »
Has to be a wheeled or hover unit for suspension factor... I can't see a hover unit working in a mechs feet. You simply need more ground cover, either that or their essentially jumpjets.

I specifically had wheeled vehicles in my head when i posted

Quote
Wheeled...Sorry, but it's just lame. I get Transformers images running though my head.

I think more of the Fuchikoma/Tachikoma/Uchikoma from Ghost in the Shell, or a few other "real robot" anime designs (or even heavy gears) before i think of Transformers - in fact, I can only think of one Transformer who skates around anyway.
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Brother Jim

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 972
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #35 on: 16 September 2011, 06:18:06 »
So a QuadVee is like a Peace River Tank Strider?

Red Bull MkII Strider [DP9-9030]

and

Coyote Strider [DP9-9103]

Sid

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1357
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #36 on: 16 September 2011, 07:53:37 »
Oh god, a rollerblading quadmech. FAIL.

What possible advantage could this bring? Maybe no piloting rolls when it's in "vee" mode? Would obviously take some tonnage and crit spaces. I don't see any maneuverability advantages (mech=tank in speed for engine size) Would let it walk where a mech can go but a tank can't. Presumably mech armor limitations.

It's essentially a boring jump the shark tank bit of technology. It seems like something new just to be new rather than something that makes a lot of sense.  They might be somewhat effective, but it just doesn't seem like it's filling a niche rather than probably being poor at covering two niches that are already filled.

There are already rules for putting turrets on quads, (and THAT is a useful bit of tech)

Hrm.  Bit of a knee jerk reaction to a new unit we know nearly nothing about.

How'd you feel about WiGEs when they were first announced?

I bet it went something like this...   ;)

Quote
Oh god, a flying hovercraft. FAIL.

What possible advantage could this bring? Maybe no rotor hits when it's in "hover" mode? Would obviously take some tonnage and crit spaces. I don't see any maneuverability advantages (WiGE=hover in speed for engine size) Would let it fly where a VTOL can go but a hover can't. Presumably speed limitations.

It's essentially a boring jump the (shark) hover bit of technology. It seems like something new just to be new rather than something that makes a lot of sense.  They might be somewhat effective, but it just doesn't seem like it's filling a niche rather than probably being poor at covering two niches that are already filled.

There are already rules for VTOLs, Fighters and, and Hovers (and THAT is a useful bit of tech)
Formerly known as 'Phad'

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4127
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #37 on: 16 September 2011, 12:33:26 »
Wheeled...Sorry, but it's just lame. I get Transformers images running though my head.
I have a Scope Dog that rather disagree's with the 'Lame' claimant.

Heck, just being able to use Road movement might make it worth it, on the strategic level.

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #38 on: 16 September 2011, 16:21:58 »
hey, i'll take rollerblading quads if that means i can make a Kenbishi industries think tank :)

Oh god, Kenbishi Industries think tank? I just noticed what acronym that forms.

How do you NOT get from multilegged tank to rollerblading quadmech?

Well, it might just be a crewed vehicle that moves like a 'Mech but takes damage like a vehicle. (Vehicle construction would certainly help overcome quad 'Mech crit limits.) But there'd be no reason to call it "Quad-"anything"-Vee" in-universe.

I bet it went something like this...   ;)

That strikes me as a largely fair description of WiGEs.  :-\
« Last Edit: 16 September 2011, 16:26:04 by skiltao »
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15537
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #39 on: 16 September 2011, 16:56:10 »
A vehicle with 4 wheels on articulating limbs could be quite swift and nimble, provided it can achieve a stable balance on 3 wheels selectively. If it has a gyro to back it up, that'd be a piece of cake.
I'd presume in-hub electric motors, possibly on a rotational mount on the "foot" of the limb. Shift that to adjust camber dynamically to your turn.
Basically the ultimate all-terrain vehicle. Rock in your path? Move the wheel out of the way by moving the leg out of the way. At slow speeds, lock the motor and step around.
Wacky obstacle orientation? Adjust the limbs. Ground clearance? 6-8 meters. Terrain passage messing up your gun's stability? Compensate the flow and provided stability with your limbs.

It'd basically be like taking a wheeled vehicle which has a 'Mech's terrain restrictions, and a wheeled vehicle's advantages. IOW, the best of both worlds. It'd be quite attractive in an urban setting.
There's potential for it to be both cool and useful, even if it's no faster than a 'Mech.
If the suspension factor is maintained, that can provided a bit of a speed boost on the lower end of the weight scale. Heck, all across the tonnage range, a suspension factor-kind of advantage would be relevant. Having a 100 ton 'Mech go 4/6 with a 380 engine provides a major tonnage and cost benefit. Heck, I'd take a suspension factor of just 10 at any tonnage. Really encourages one to make them speed demons and tap in on that discount.

Now, a tracked quad-vee, I'm not sure I grasp the utility of that one immediately, either as fluff or from a BT design perspective. Hover seems physically impossible.

Obviously, I'm posting this while 100% ignorant of any and all rules concerning quad-vees: if any exist already, they do so outside my awareness.

Paul
The solution is just ignore Paul.

verybad

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #40 on: 16 September 2011, 19:42:02 »
Hrm.  Bit of a knee jerk reaction to a new unit we know nearly nothing about.

How'd you feel about WiGEs when they were first announced?

I bet it went something like this...   ;)
WiGEs aren't new. The Soviets used them starting in the 60's, the physical knowledge that they could be made was understood in the 1920s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle

It's not a knee jerk reaction at all.  I see little advantage towards combining a quad mech with vehicular movements. It is not a good argument to make an unsupported suggestion regarding someones basis for their opinions rather than supporting your own reason for an opinion. I like new things in battletech, more than most I think considering some's reactions to various changes in the universe or technology through the years.

I simply don't like new things that seem poorly conceived. Quadvees seem just that at this point. I could be surprised in the future, but the basic idea seems like it would result in a more complex object (expensive, difficult to maintain), with more mass and volume devoted to it's movement systems (less mass for armor/weaponry/engine), and more vulnerable to movement system failure or damage from combat. In return, it gains what? Quads are already very stable, while a tank isn't vulnerable to falling from damage, it's a limited gain.

If there's still a suspension factor, the tonnage of two different motive systems also has to be considered, it's like this would typically be higher than the suspensions factor's bonus.

If it has a Ground clearance that's (for instance) 5 meters then it should be vulnerable to falling not only from damage as normal in a mech, but also from fast turns while operating in a "vee" mode, physically those forces would be operating on it, making a high speed turn in a double decker bus is a similar comparison. Presumably it could raise or lower it's clearance based on it's mode of operation.

So to people feeling somehow attacked that I don't agree with you. I'm sorry, it's not my intention to upset anyone, however the concept seems like something that while it might be feasible to make, would result in an expensive military boondoggle with little or no true advantages.

Let Miley lick the hammers!

Talz

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 189
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #41 on: 16 September 2011, 21:29:01 »
I really don't see how one can be strongly favorable or unfavorable to the idea of a QuadVee when we know practically nothing other than it's called a QuadVee.  I agree that many of the ideas for what a QuadVee could be do seem to be of dubious value.   Who knows what cool and crazy idea could be in store though, QuadMechs and especially the heavier Quads do have one glaring flaw in their of critical space, simply addressing that issue with vehiclar construction is at least something that could be reasonably experimented with.

Paint it Pink

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
  • Pink Panther Battalion: The Gritty Kitty's
    • Paint it Pink
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #42 on: 17 September 2011, 04:44:36 »
Sounds cool to me as QuadVee has a certain ring to it. Might lead to GunHed style mecha action too.
The unseen once seen cannot be unseen



http://panther6actual.blogspot.com/

tapdancingbeavers

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 265
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #43 on: 17 September 2011, 05:54:07 »
Quote
but the basic idea seems like it would result in a more complex object (expensive, difficult to maintain), with more mass and volume devoted to it's movement systems (less mass for armor/weaponry/engine), and more vulnerable to movement system failure or damage from combat. In return, it gains what? Quads are already very stable, while a tank isn't vulnerable to falling from damage, it's a limited gain.

You've just described every single 'mech in existence.

Gus

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #44 on: 17 September 2011, 06:03:16 »
I wonder if QuadVees could be based on any type of vehicle.

QuadVee submarines = QUad + UMUs

QuadVee WIGEs = LAMS. (Although we're still waiting to see if LAMS are permissible on a Quad chassis.)

QuadVee VTOLS = a potentially interesting mix of mobility options.

Sid

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1357
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #45 on: 17 September 2011, 15:22:54 »
WiGEs aren't new. The Soviets used them starting in the 60's, the physical knowledge that they could be made was understood in the 1920s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle

They're new to Battletech.  They weren't released until Total Warfare- about twenty years after the game was first conceived in the early 1980s.

It's not a knee jerk reaction at all.  I see little advantage towards combining a quad mech with vehicular movements. It is not a good argument to make an unsupported suggestion regarding someones basis for their opinions rather than supporting your own reason for an opinion. I like new things in battletech, more than most I think considering some's reactions to various changes in the universe or technology through the years.

We know little to nothing about the quadvees as of yet.  You heard about them in this thread, and immediately concluded that they're ill conceived because you assumed they won't make sense.

That is, by definition, a knee jerk reaction.

It's no different than someone hearing about WiGEs for Total Warfare, and assume that because we already have VTOLs, Hovercrafts, Conventional Fighters and Aerospace fighters there wouldn't be an advantage to them.

Or concluding that any combination of a 'mech and an aerospace would be useless due to movement penalties and conversion equipment- making LAMs 'ill conceived'

Or a combination of a Battlemech and Battle Armour would be ill conceived as well.

Yet, somehow, TPTB have all managed to make them work in the game.

Jumping to the assumption and going on a rant that quadvees are stupid before seeing any sort of rules for them is an overreaction.

I simply don't like new things that seem poorly conceived. Quadvees seem just that at this point. I could be surprised in the future, but the basic idea seems like it would result in a more complex object (expensive, difficult to maintain), with more mass and volume devoted to it's movement systems (less mass for armor/weaponry/engine), and more vulnerable to movement system failure or damage from combat. In return, it gains what? Quads are already very stable, while a tank isn't vulnerable to falling from damage, it's a limited gain.

Or, you know, they could combine the features of both instead of their negative quirks.  Protomechs don't suffer falling damage, for example.  As it's Clan, and the Horses have been using Protomechs of late, they could incorporate the smaller gyros and technology there into this quadvee.  We could see a quad-like 'mech that saves tonnage by using smaller gyros and smaller engines for a similiar movement profile, or as Paul suggests, a vehicle that ignors terrain modifiers with minor tradeoffs.

In the end, we won't know until we see the actual rules.  There was fear that a modern version of the LAM rules would be overpowered by some, and crippled by others.  In the end, it looks like TBTB did a nice job.

Jumping to the assumption that they can't come up with rules that reflect a niche this vehicle can fill (especially as many of them wrote for MWDA under Wizkids) is what's ill conceived at this point, in my opinion.

Formerly known as 'Phad'

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #46 on: 17 September 2011, 16:09:18 »
I think quad-vees with little wheels/tracks/etc on the bottom of feet would be really out of place in BT.

HOWEVER, if they were mounted to the bottom of the body, and the legs simply raised when the vehicle wanted to move at road speeds or over water as a hovercraft I could totally accept it.  Some of the quads, like the Scorpion, have very flat and large underbelly's that'd be perfect for some half recessed wheels, tracks, or a hoverskirt.

Think of it more as a vehicle with deployable legs than a mech with wheels, and it may help make sense to you.  In fact, that'd make more sense anyway, as vehicles are more maneuverable in just about every situation, and would only occasionally need to deploy the legs at all.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

verybad

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #47 on: 17 September 2011, 18:15:14 »
I personally don't think there is a niche that what the Quadvee apears to be would fill. I'ver already stated my reasons for why. I don't think that my respnse is a knee-jerk reaction because I gave valid reasons for my opinion(several times), and I feel that term(knee-jerk) is insulting. Attacking my opinion rather than supporting your own is tiresome to respond to and I don't want to flame anyone.

I've already stated that I could end up being wrong. I'm always ready to admit to my mistakes. However reposting why I think it's a poor idea (compromising on various things like weight/critical space/vulnerability to motile systems) over and over while being told that I'm "ranting" (I hope I've avoided insulting anyone.) is a waste of my time.

I'm sure the QuadVee will be perfect in every manner, the ultimate tool in battle. You won the argument. I'm convinced.
Let Miley lick the hammers!

Charlie Tango

  • Moderator Emeritus
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6494
  • I'm feeling a little sketchy...
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #48 on: 18 September 2011, 03:22:51 »

 [copper]

I think  a number of people in this thread are starting to get too heated.

Let's turn it back a few notches, ok?

Thanks

/  [copper]
"This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature.
There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games."
  
-- William S. Burroughs

StoneGiant

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
  • CLAN WIND SHRIMP
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #49 on: 18 September 2011, 03:25:50 »
Anyone reminded of those tank treads on the butt / legs of the protagonists "mech" in Robotjox?  :D
555th Prawn Grenadiers, Tempura Galaxy, Scampi Cluster, Gumbo Super Nova, Risotto Trinary, Creole Star.

StCptMara

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6551
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #50 on: 18 September 2011, 03:33:43 »
[copper]

I think  a number of people in this thread are starting to get too heated.

Let's turn it back a few notches, ok?

Thanks

/  [copper]


About something that we do not even know if it is canon or not!
Seriously: are QuadVees mentioned in any of the novels? On INN?
If they are mentioned on INN, how canon *IS* INN?
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

"Greetings, Mechwarrior! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against---Oops, wrong universe" - Unknown SLDF Recruiter

Reality and Battletech go hand in hand like a drug induced hallucination and engineering a fusion reactor ;-)

StoneGiant

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
  • CLAN WIND SHRIMP
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #51 on: 18 September 2011, 03:47:16 »
This thread is the first I've ever heard of quadvees.

I think I remember hoverbikes in some of the Dark Age fiction, but never heard nothing bout no quadvees.  ???
555th Prawn Grenadiers, Tempura Galaxy, Scampi Cluster, Gumbo Super Nova, Risotto Trinary, Creole Star.

PeripheryPirate

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 686
  • Your friendly neighborhood Periphery pirate!
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #52 on: 18 September 2011, 03:51:17 »

About something that we do not even know if it is canon or not!
Seriously: are QuadVees mentioned in any of the novels? On INN?
If they are mentioned on INN, how canon *IS* INN?

The source was quoted earlier in the thread; there's a very brief mention of the concept in Technology of Destruction. Look back a couple of pages.

StCptMara

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6551
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #53 on: 18 September 2011, 03:57:45 »
The source was quoted earlier in the thread; there's a very brief mention of the concept in Technology of Destruction. Look back a couple of pages.

but, is Technology of Destruction considered canon? How do we know that there really was something
new being developed, in fact, and not just a mis-interpretation of what was being seen? Was there a picture
of a Quad-Vee in ToD?
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

"Greetings, Mechwarrior! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against---Oops, wrong universe" - Unknown SLDF Recruiter

Reality and Battletech go hand in hand like a drug induced hallucination and engineering a fusion reactor ;-)

StoneGiant

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
  • CLAN WIND SHRIMP
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #54 on: 18 September 2011, 04:01:38 »
Maybe it'll be a one off unit with it's own rules that never really gets repeated, like that jumping tank.
555th Prawn Grenadiers, Tempura Galaxy, Scampi Cluster, Gumbo Super Nova, Risotto Trinary, Creole Star.

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12120
  • We're back, baby!
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #55 on: 18 September 2011, 04:37:33 »
but, is Technology of Destruction considered canon? How do we know that there really was something
new being developed, in fact, and not just a mis-interpretation of what was being seen? Was there a picture
of a Quad-Vee in ToD?

As far as I know, ToD is canon.  there's nothing in it that really goes against canon anyway.  There's no picture of a QuadVee, just a mention in text.

Maybe it'll be a one off unit with it's own rules that never really gets repeated, like that jumping tank.

Of course, there are two jumping tanks now...
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #56 on: 18 September 2011, 09:14:32 »
Getting back on subject of the Blog and the potential of Interstellar Operations.

Does seem like ther will be quick-start rules for this mammoth?  I would like hope there were simple rules to run a interstellar empire, to help get grasp of things.  Then switch over to more complicated stuff that main book will likely intail.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #57 on: 18 September 2011, 09:19:11 »
I'm hoping for the same.
That way I can tell my group that they could either play "beer n pretzels" version of conquest or get into detail and play out the long game after some set up.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

verybad

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #58 on: 18 September 2011, 17:57:02 »
I'm hoping for rules that let you build up research and get higher tech. Essentially that let you start from "WTF! The Terran Alliance just stopped supporting us! To "We are the post Clans, we come for your worlds. Even our underwear is hightech!"

Essentially rules that let you generate empires that don't need to be what is in the inner sphere in canon. I love the canon universe, but the freedom to generate our own would be fun also.

I want economy to be well modeled, with good reasons for conquering planets (or colonizing) other than "We want more hexes." Rules for building industry up on planets (eg from primitive Tank factories to society tech level mech factories. Rules for developing high and low tech (eg HPGs, RotS shields) and so on.

I'm very much looking forward to this.
Let Miley lick the hammers!

StoneGiant

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
  • CLAN WIND SHRIMP
Re: New Blog from Randall 9-13-11
« Reply #59 on: 19 September 2011, 04:23:54 »
If it ends up being like that generating AU's should be easier than ever.
555th Prawn Grenadiers, Tempura Galaxy, Scampi Cluster, Gumbo Super Nova, Risotto Trinary, Creole Star.

 

Register